RSA No.589 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.589 of 2010 Date of Decision:27.07.2010 M/s J.B.Tyre and Tubes(P)Ltd. & anr. .... appellants Versus Mrs.Sudesh Rani .....respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG 1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr.Lalit Garg,Advocate for the appellants **** RAKESH KUMAR GARG J. This is defendants' second appeal challenging the judgment and decrees of the courts below, whereby suit for recovery filed by the plaintiff-respondent has been decreed. As per the averments made in the plaint, the respondent filed a suit for recovery of Rs.1,59,135/- alleging that a loan of Rs.90,000/- was advanced to the appellant on 15.04.1993 through a cheque, on which, interest at the rate of 18% per annum was payable. Appellant made a part payment of the interest vide cheque dated 28.02.1996 for a sum of Rs.30,000/-. Appellant further issued two cheques of Rs.50,000/- and Rs.30,000/- as part payment of principal amount and interest. Both these cheques were presented to the bank but were returned due to paucity of funds. Thereafter, a notice was issued to the appellant for making the payment and after expiry of the period, respondent filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act as well as the present suit. RSA No.589 of 2010 2 The suit was contested by the appellant by filing written statement. It was denied that appellant had taken any loan as alleged or issued any cheque in favour of the plaintiff-respondent. It was also stated that suit was time barred and not maintainable. While decreeing the suit, the trial Court held that the plaintiff-respondent was able to prove that loan was advanced to the appellant who issued two cheques but due to paucity of funds, those cheques were dishonoured and no payment was made to the plaintiff- respondent and, thus, the plaintiff was entitled for recovery. The trial Court further held that legal notice was issued by the plaintiff-respondent on 24.06.1996 to the defendant for making payment giving him 15 days' time and the present suit which was filed on 05.06.1999 was within the prescribed period of limitation of three years. Appeal filed by the defendant-appellant before the Lower Appellate Court was also dismissed. Still not satisfied, the defendant-appellant has filed the instant appeal challenging the judgment and decrees of the Courts below. Learned counsel for the appellants has challenged the judgment and decrees of the courts below only on the ground that the suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent was not within limitation and therefore the suit for recovery could not have been decreed. Learned counsel for the appellants has vehemently argued that the Lower Appellate Court has not given any finding on the point of limitation. It was further argued that the suit of the plaintiff was clearly barred as according to the averments of the plaintiff himself, defendant borrowed the loan on 15.04.1993 and therefore the suit for recovery could have been filed up to 15.04.1996 and mere issuance of alleged cheques after the expiry of period of imitation will not extend the limitation. Since, there was no acknowledgment made by the appellant to pay the alleged RSA No.589 of 2010 3 loan, the issuance of cheques dated 05.06.1996 and 14.06.1996 cannot be treated as valid acknowledgment for filing suit for recovery and thus the judgment and decrees of the courts below were liable to be set aside. On the basis of the aforesaid arguments, it was submitted that the following substantial questions of law arise in this appeal: 1. Whether the suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent was beyond limitation? I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the impugned judgment and decrees of the Courts below. As far as argument raised by learned counsel for the appellants that despite the arguments the Lower Appellate Court has not returned any finding on issue of limitation, is concerned, the same is incorrect. In para No.10 of the judgment of the Lower Appellate Court, it has been specifically mentioned that the cheques issued by the appellants have given limitation to the plaintiff to file the suit. Now, coming to the second argument as raised by learned counsel for the appellants, it must be stated that the same is also without any merit. Learned counsel for the appellants could not dispute the factum of issuance of two cheques in favour of the plaintiff-respondent, as aforesaid. The factum of dishonouring of the aforesaid cheques by the bank of the appellants is also not disputed. Issuance of notice by the plaintiff-respondent under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is also admitted. By issuing the aforesaid cheques, the appellant, in fact, acknowledged his liability to pay the amount to the plaintiff-respondent and therefore on issuance of the aforesaid cheques the limitation stood extended for filing the suit within three years from the said date of acknowledgement. Further cause of action arose to the plaintiff- respondent on return of the aforesaid cheques, unpaid and thus the suit RSA No.589 of 2010 4 filed by the plaintiff-respondent on 05.06.1999, which is admittedly within three years from the date of return of the aforesaid cheques, is within limitation. Thus, no fault can be found with the judgment and decrees of the courts below. No substantial question of law arises. Dismissed. (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) JUDGE 27.07.2010 neenu