HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SWAROOP REDDY APPEAL SUIT No.3202 OF 1992 JUDGMENT: The unsuccessful plaintiff filed this Appeal Suit against the judgment and decree in O.S. No.594 of 1987 dated 28-08-1992 passed by the learned Additional Subordinate Judge, Guntur. 2. Plaintiff, Bank of India, Pedavadlapudi, is appellant and respondent, Langi Reddy Chinapapi Reddy, is defendant in the suit before the trial Court. 3. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as they arrayed in the suit before the trial Court. 4. Plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.68,038/- with interest at 16½% per annum from the defendant contending that defendant borrowed a loan of Rs.15,000/- on 01-05-1974 promising to repay the same, but did not repay. He executed letters of acknowledgement of debt dated 04-11-1976, 09-07-1979, 18-05-1982, 28-11-1984 and 01-12-1986. One Langireddy Pitchireddy agreed to be the guarantor for the loan and executed letter of guarantee, but later he refused to pay the loan amount. 5. Defendant filed written statement denying the allegations against him in the plaint and further contending that there is no consistency in the case of the plaintiff and that he, defendant, is not acquainted with the English language. One Janga Sambasiva Reddy transacted with the plaintiff bank and was intimately associated with the officials of the bank. The said Janga Sambasiva Reddy approached him representing that he knows people of the bank and he will get a loan with interest at 12% per annum and the bank officials also assured him, defendant, about the same, then he signed several blank papers of printed performa. The contents of those documents were not read over to him, as such, he is not aware of those documents. He has not executed any acknowledgements dated 04- 11-1976, 09-07-1979, 18-05-1982, 28-11-1984 and 01-12-1986 and that the suit is barred by limitation and the interest claimed is high etc. 6. Based on the pleadings, the following issues were framed by the trial Court for trial: “1. Whether the plaintiff obtained the signatures of the defendant, without explaining him, the contents of the said documents ? 2. Whether the defendant executed the documents referred to by the plaintiff ? 3. Whether the suit is in time ? 4. Whether the defendant is an agriculturist and entitled to the benefits under Act 4/38 ? 5. Whether the interest claimed is usurious ? 6. To what relief ?” 7. To prove its case, plaintiff got examined PWs.1 to 6 and got marked Exs.A-1 to A-9. On behalf of the defendant, DWS.1 and 2 were examined but no documents were marked. 8. Based on the material on record, trial Court dismissed the suit as barred by limitation though answered all the other issues in favour of the plaintiff. 9. Now the only point that arises for consideration in this appeal is as to whether the suit is within time ? 10. As per the pleadings, amount was borrowed by the defendant on 01-05-1974 and he executed acknowledgments of debt on 04-11-1976, 09-07-1979, 18-05-1982, 28-11-1984 and 01-12-1986. According to the plaintiff, Exs.A-5 to A-8 are those acknowledgments. Ex.A-5 is letter of acknowledgement of debt dated 09-07-1979 and Ex.A-6 is another letter of acknowledgement of debt dated 18-05-1982. PW.3 did not speak about any letter of acknowledgment dated 04-11-1976. Evidence of PW.3 is that Ex.A-5 is letter of acknowledgment dated 04- 11-1976. But, Ex.A-5 shows that it is of 09-07-1979 and not of 04-11-1976. 11. Learned counsel for the plaintiff, appellant, contends that there was some mistake in marking the documents and instead of marking the letter of acknowledgement dated 04-11-1976 as Ex.A-5, letter of acknowledgment dated 09-07-1979 was marked as Ex.A-5. 12. But, the entire material filed before the trial Court would not show any document, letter of acknowledgment of debt, of 04-11-1976. Thus, no letter of acknowledgment dated 04-11-1976 is on record. Hence, finding of the trial Court with regard to there being no letter of acknowledgment dated 04-11-1976 cannot be said to be erroneous. Such being the case, it has to be held that the suit is barred by limitation. Thus, there are no grounds for allowing this appeal. The appeal fails and is liable to be dismissed. 13. Accordingly, the Appeal Suit is dismissed with costs. ______________________ P. SWAROOP REDDY, J September 16, 2010. PV