1 sa241-10 ttm IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO.241 OF 2010 Shri Ramakant Damodar Tare .. Appellant Vs. Sou.Jaywanti Bhuvaneshwar Vaidya and Ors. .. Respondents Mr.S.D.Patil for the appellant CORAM: K.K. TATED, J. DATE 5TH JANUARY, 2011 P.C. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. 2. The present Second Appeal is preferred by original plaintiff against judgment and decree dt.05.11.09 passed by learned District Judge-4, Thane in Civil Appeal No.177 of 2006 arising out of judgment and decree dt. 22.2.06 passed by Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Thane in Special Civil Suit No.350 of 2004. 2 sa241-10 3. The appellant is the original plaintiff who filed Special Civil Suit No.350 of 2004 in the court of Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Thane for recovery of sum of Rs.1,00,000/- and interest thereon. The said suit was partly decreed by Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Thane on 22.2.06 directing respondents (original defendants) to pay Rs.1,00,000/- to the appellant (original plaintiff) together with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of suit till realisation of amount. 4. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree passed by trial court, original defendant preferred Civil Appeal No.177 of 2006 on 30.11.2000 in the court of District Judge, Thane. The said appeal was allowed by District Judge on 05.11.2009 holding that the suit filed by appellant was barred by law of limitation. 5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant (original plaintiff) submits that the appellate court erred in coming to the conclusion that the suit filed by the appellant was barred by limitation. He further submits that the appellate court has not stated under which article of the law of limitation, the suit filed by appellant was beyond the period of limitation. He further submits that the appellate court failed to consider Exhibit 17 that is the receipt executed by respondent admitting their liability. On these submissions, the learned counsel appearing on 3 sa241-10 behalf of the appellant submits that this is a fit case for admission. 6. I have gone through the copy of plaint and written statement alongwith judgment of both the courts. It is admitted fact that in plaint, appellant specifically stated that he issued legal notice to the respondent on 29.6.01 calling upon them to make the payment of Rs.1,00,000/- alongwith interest. It is further stated in the plaint that the appellant advanced loan of Rs.1,00,000/- to the respondent (original defendant) on 20.7.01. Taking into consideration the documents produced by appellant on record, the appellate court rightly held that suit filed by appellant on 8.7.04 was barred by limitation. 7. Bare reading of the plaint shows that before advancing a loan of Rs. 1,00,000/- on 20.7.01, the appellant issued legal notice to the respondent (original defendant) calling upon them to repay the loan. The said notice was issued on 29.06.01. These facts were considered by the appellate court for coming to the conclusion that the suit filed by the appellant was barred by limitation. Even though the defendant admitted in their written statement that they made part payments of Rs.58,000/- to the appellant upto 29.3.01, even considering the last date of repayment of loan 29.3.01, the suit filed by appellant on 8.7.04 was beyond the period of limitation. 4 sa241-10 8. These facts were considered by the appellate court in para nos.11 and 12. It is not necessary to set under which article the suit filed by appellant was beyond period of limitation. 9. Considering these facts, I do not find any substance in the present Second Appeal and same is dismissed summarily at the stage of admission itself. 10. No order as to costs. (K.K. TATED, J.)