1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY: NAGPUR BENCH: NAGPUR SECOND APPEAL NO.408/2010 CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA ..VS.. HARSHADRAI SHANTILAL PALAN & ORS Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Appearances, Court’s orders or directions and Registrar’s orders Court’s or judges Orders. CORAM: SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE: 20 /9 / 2010 Heard Shri Khati, the learned counsel for the appellant. The appellant is the original plaintiff. A suit was filed by the plaintiff against the defendant for recovery of a sum of Rs.84,270/- which was found outstanding against the defendant. The plaintiff also claimed interest of Rs.18,960/- w.e.f.1.2.2000 to 31.8.2010. In all, a decree of Rs.1,03,630/- was sought by the plaintiff. The plaintiff – bank had pleaded that the defendant no.1 had been granted a cash credit facility of Rs.90,000/- and the defendants no.2 & 3 were the guarantors of the defendant no.1. The defendants pleaded that the signatures of the defendants were obtained on certain bank documents without explaining the contents of the documents. Even otherwise, since the cash credit facility was extended to the defendant in 1989, according to defendants, the suit was clearly barred by limitation. Both the courts on a proper appreciation of the evidence on record, held that the suit filed by the plaintiff bank was clearly barred by the provisions of Limitations Act. The courts held that the notice was issued by the bank to the defendant no.1 and though the defendant no.1 had admitted his liability to repay, it was necessary to note that the said document or acknowledgment was not executed till 4.1.2.2001. The courts held that in view of the provisions of section 2 18 of the Limitation Act an acknowledgment has to be in writing and has to be made before the expiration of the prescribed period of limitation. The plaintiff in the instant case had not stated the date on which the defendant had made the last payment and had also not stated that the execution of the acknowledgment in writing was made before the expiration of the prescribed period of limitation. The courts therefore, held that the document at exhibit 27 was not helpful to the plaintiff bank for extension of the period of limitation. The courts rightly relied on the provisions of section 18 of the Limitation Act to hold that the acknowledgment, if any, was definitely given, after expiration of the prescribed period of limitation for institution of a suit or application for recovering the amount. The findings recorded by both the courts are findings of facts based on a proper appreciation of the provisions of Limitation Act, they do not give rise to any substantial question of law. The second appeal therefore, fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE SMP.