S.B.CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.543/2005- Lalit Kumar & Ors. vs.Pukhraj Order dt: 19/2/2009. 1/4 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR O R D E R Lalit Kumar & Ors. vs. Pukhraj s/o Mohan Lal S.B.CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.543/2005 DATE OF ORDER : 19/2/2009 P R E S E N T HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARI None present for the petitioner. Mr.Rakesh Arora, for the respondent. 1. Heard learned counsel for the respondent. 2. This writ petition is directed against the order of learned District Judge, Sirohi dated 12/10/2004, whereby, the learned District Judge has upheld the judgment and decree of learned trial court dated 30/10/2003 for recovery of sum of Rs.25,000/- in a suit filed by plaintiff on 25/8/2000. 3. The courts below have however dismissed the suit as barred by limitation deciding issue no.3 against the plaintiff as the loan agreement in question – Ex.1 was dated 20/9/1996, whereas, suit was S.B.CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.543/2005- Lalit Kumar & Ors. vs.Pukhraj Order dt: 19/2/2009. 2/4 filed on 25/8/2000 though other issues were decided in favour of the plaintiff. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent defendant Mr.Rakesh Arora submits that in view of Section 18 of the Indian Limitation Act read with Schedule -item no.19 period of three years expired in the year 1999 and, therefore, the suit filed by the plaintiff on 25/8/2000 has been rightly rejected by the courts below. 5. However, the perusal of impugned order of the learned trial court and document Ex.1, the agreement in question, reveals that some repayment were made by the defendant from time to time to the plaintiff to the extent of Rs.14660/-, the details of these payments are given at the back of Ex.1 itself, as under; Rs.5000/- on 1.11.1996, Rs.2000/- on 17/1/1997, Rs.3000/- on 06/5/1997, Rs.2000/- on 11/6/1997, Rs.2000/- on 19/3/1998. On the top of back of Ex.1 Rs.660/- is also said to have deposited by defendant on 20/10/1996, thus, total of Rs.14,660/- was paid by the defendant under the said loan agreement dated 20/9/1996 for Rs.22,000/-. Thus, the suit filed by the plaintiff on 25/8/12000 was apparently within the period of S.B.CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.543/2005- Lalit Kumar & Ors. vs.Pukhraj Order dt: 19/2/2009. 3/4 three years from the last repayment on 19/3/1998 of Rs.2000/-. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent defendant Mr.Arora submits that since there is no signed acknowledgment on behalf of defendant on the said document Ex.1, therefore, it cannot be construed as an acknowledgment of debt on behalf of defendant and, therefore, the suit was barred by limitation as the period is to be counted from the date of loan itself dated 20/9/1996. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the respondent Mr.Rakesh Arora, this Court finds no force in the submission made by learned counsel for the respondent defendant. The admission of execution of document Ex.1 and his signatures from A to B on the said document and another document of defendant himself which the learned counsel for the defendant produced during the course of arguments under which the dates and amount of repayemnt as given by the appellant exactly tallies, goes to show that these payments were admittedly made though may be against principal sum or against the interest. The acknowledgment of the said loan transaction admittedly continued till 19/3/1998, therefore, the period of limitation can be said to S.B.CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.543/2005- Lalit Kumar & Ors. vs.Pukhraj Order dt: 19/2/2009. 4/4 commence only after the said date 19/3/1998 and thus suit filed on 25/8/2000 could not be held to be time barred. Therefore, the courts below have erred in holding the suit barred by limitation. Issue no.3 of limitation is thus decided in favour of plaintiff. Decree be made accordingly. Revised decree for recovery with interest be made by learned trial court. 8. Consequently, this revision petition of plaintiff petitioner is allowed and the impugned order dated 12/10/2004 and 30/10/2003 are quashed and set aside to the extent of issue no.3 while rest of the said order is maintained. Copy of this order be sent to the petitioners. (DR.VINEET KOTHARI), J. item no.61 baweja/-