CFA 20/99 (1) In the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan At Jaipur Bench, Jaipur J U D G M E N T In S.B. Civil First Regular Appeal No.20/1999 Rajasthan Financial Corporation Vs. M/s. Rama Plastic and others Date Of Judgment :: 1st July, 2008 P R E S E N T Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jitendra Ray Goyal Mr. G.C. Garg with Mr. Alok Garg, for appellant. None present for respondents. By the Court :- This is an appeal under section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 by the appellant-plaintiff (hereinafter to be referred as the appellant) against the judgment and decree dated 16th October, 1998 passed by Additional District Judge No.3, Jaipur City, Jaipur in Civil Suit No.107/1989 whereby the suit filed by appellant-Rajasthan Financial Corporation CFA 20/99 (2) for recovery of money against the respondent-defendants (hereinafter to be referred as the respondents) has been dismissed on the ground that the suit was barred by limitation. 2. After service on the respondents through publication in daily newspaper, none appeared. 3. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the pleadings, evidence and relevant material available on the record. 5. It was inter alia contended by the counsel for the appellant that on the request of respondents initially a loan of Rs.67,000/- was sanctioned on 19/5/1980, out of which the respondents availed loan of Rs.61,000/-. The said loan was to be repaid within six years in 19 quarterly installments. The first installment was made payable on 1/5/1982 and as such the CFA 20/99 (3) last installment was to be deposited on 1/5/1988. It was then submitted that likewise another loan of Rs.15,000/- was sanctioned on 12/8/1981 and according to the contract in between the parties, the said loan was also made payable within six years in ten half yearly installments. It was also agreed in between the parties that first installment shall fall due on the first day of 12th month reckoned from the date of first disbursement of the loan amount, as such the cause of action for suit arose only on the due date for payment of last installment which can at the most be said to be payable in the year 1988, therefore, the appellant Rajasthan Financial Corporation filed the suit within a period of three years from the due date of last installment. In support of their contentions reliance placed was on the judgment delivered in S.B.C.M.A No.476/1994 CFA 20/99 (4) titled as RFC Vs. Shri Kundan Lal & Others, decided on 27/2/2008. Learned counsel for the appellant also placed reliance on the judgment delivered in the case of Jailebdeen Vs. Mohammed Basheer, reported in AIR 1992 Kerala 31 and C. Dhanam Vs. A.M. Srinivasan & Ors., reported in 2006(3) CCC 313 (Mad.). It was also submitted that after some installments fell due and remain unpaid, the hypotheticated machinery of the respondents was taken possession of, on 16/1/1984 in exercise of section 29 of SFC Act and the amount of Rs.21,000/- which was received from the auction of the goods on 15/11/1988 was credited and further there was an acknowledgment of the loan made by the respondents on 8/3/1989, therefore, in view of these facts also the suit was well within the period of limitation. In support of this contention reliance was placed on the judgment delivered in the CFA 20/99 (5) case of Syndicate Bank Vs. Channaveerappa Beleri & Ors, reported in 2006(3) CCC 11 (SC). 6. I have considered the above submissions. From the perusal of the record of the trial court it appears that desipte of the service respondents did not file any written statement and exparte proceedings were initiated against them. From the plaint and various documents of agreement in between the parties placed on the record, it appears that two loans-one of Rs.61,000/- and another of Rs.15,000/- were sanctioned in favour of the respondents on 26/5/1980 and 28/8/1981 respectively and documents of loan agreement, hypothetication deed etc. were executed in favour of the appellant Rajasthan Financial Corporation by the respondents. From the loan agreement, it also appears that first loan of Rs.61,000/- CFA 20/99 (6) was made payable in six years in total 19 quarterly installments. The first installment was made payable on the first day of 24th month reckoned from the date of first disbursement i.e. after two years from the date of loan disbursement and likewise in the second loan which was to be payable in a period of six years with ten, half yearly installments. The first installment was made payable on the first day of 12th month from the date of first disbursement i.e. after one year from the date of said loan disbursement. It would be relevant to mention that according to Article 113 of the Limitation Act, 1963, period of limitation for filing such a suit is three years from the accrual of cause of action. In the instant case, the right to sue accrues on the termination of the contract i.e. the date on which last installment was to be paid which was in the CFA 20/99 (7) year 1988 in this case, whereas the suit has been filed on 3/6/1989 within a period of three years from the date of last installment payable by the respondents. 7. In view of the above, it is held that the suit filed by the appellant was well within limitation. 8. Consequently, the appeal is accepted. The impugned judgment and decree dated 16th October,1998 passed by learned Additional District Judge No.3, Jaipur City, Jaipur in Civil Suit No.107/1989 is quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Court of learned Additional District Judge No.3, Jaipur City, Jaipur for disposal of the suit on merits in accordance with law. Record of the court below be sent back forthwith. (J.R. Goyal),J. V.S. Shekhawat/- Jr. P.A.