IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA SECOND APPEAL NO. 79 OF 2008 MR. RAMESH JAGANNATH BHOI AND ANR., ... Appellants Versus ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE ... Respondent Shri S. Naik, Advocate for the Appellants. Coram:- N. A. BRITTO, J. Date:- 6th March, 2009 P.C.:- This Second Appeal is by Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 in Special Civil Suit No.44/1995. Heard Shri S. Naik, learned Counsel on behalf of the Defendants. The Plaintiff/Bank had filed a Civil Suit on 13-3-1995 for recovery of a sum of Rs.1,51,822-25. The suit came to be decreed by the learned trial Court against all Defendants by Judgment dated 4-5-2007. An appeal filed therefrom came to be dismissed on 31-3-2008. The Defendant Nos.1 and 2 had taken the plea of limitation that the suit was time barred. This aspect has been dealt by the learned trial Court while discussing additional Issue No.4. It appears that Defendant No.1 had not led any evidence and the suit had proceeded ex parte against Defendant Nos.2 and 3. The Plaintiff had produced an acknowledgment signed by Defendant No.1 dated 17-3-1992 which was produced at Exh.34. The learned trial Court has clearly given a finding that the present suit which was filed on 13-3-1995 is within time. It appears from the said acknowledgment that as on 17-3-1992 Defendant No.1 had acknowledged a liability in the sum of Rs.88,954/-. Learned Counsel on behalf of Defendant Nos.1 and 2 submits that the Plaintiff's witness had admitted that Defendant No.1 had not come to the Bank on that day i.e. on 17-3-1992. That certainly does not rule out the fact that the Defendants had not signed the said acknowledgment at their residence or in some other place. That acknowledgment was not challenged. That could be done by leading evidence stating that they had not executed the same. Learned Counsel on behalf of the said Defendants further submits that the Plaintiff's Manager had no authority to file the suit inasmuch as no document was brought on record. This aspect has also been dealt by the learned trial Court while discussing additional Issue No.5 relying on the case of Bank of Maharashtra v. M/s Balraj Sud and others(1999(1) GLT 364). There is no merit in this Second Appeal as it does not involve any substantial question of law. The same therefore is hereby dismissed. N. A. BRITTO, J. RD.