IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA SECOND APPEAL NO. 41 OF 2011 MR. IRINEU DE SA ... Appellant Versus SHRI. SANDEEP P. KHAVANTE ... Respondent Mr. G. Vijaychandran, Advocate for the appellant. Coram:- A. P. LAVANDE, J. Date:- 4th May, 2011 P.C. Heard Mr. Vijaychandran, learned Counsel for the appellant. 2. By this Second Appeal, the appellant takes exception to the judgment and order dated 20th October, 2010 passed by the District Judge-I, South Goa, Margao in Regular Civil Appeal No.148/2010 by which the appeal preferred by the appellant against the judgment and decree dated 30th June, 2007 passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Margao in Special Civil Suit No.11/2005/II has been dismissed. 3. The respondent / plaintiff filed the above suit seeking recovery of the amount due by the defendant to him. Upon bare perusal of the plaint, it is evident that the suit was based on the allegation that the cheque issued by the defendant for Rs.2,38,500/- dated 25th January, 2002 bounced. The suit was filed on 24th January, 2005. 4. According to Mr. Vijaychandran, the suit was essentially filed for the recovery of an amount advanced to the defendant on 24th January, 2001 and as such, the suit filed on 24th January, 2005 was barred by limitation. 5. Having heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and having perused the record, I find that the contention of the appellant/ defendant that the suit was for recovery of an amount advanced on 24th January, 2001 has no merit. Upon perusal of the plaint, it is evident that the suit was essentially filed for recovery of an amount due in terms of the cheque dated 25th January, 2002 along with interest thereon. As such, the suit filed on 24th January, 2005 cannot be said to be barred by limitation as has rightly been held by the lower appellate Court. Although the lower appellate Court has placed reliance upon Section 19 of the Limitation Act and even if the argument of Mr. Vijaychandran that Section 19 of the Limitation Act is not attracted is accepted, yet, the suit filed by the plaintiff cannot be said to be barred by limitation. 5. For the reasons stated above, I do not find any ground to admit the appeal. No substantial question of law is involved in the appeal. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. A. P. LAVANDE, J. SMA