FA/193219/1990 1/3 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD FIRST APPEAL No. 1932 of 1990 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ========================================================= UMAKANT N BHAGAT - Appellant(s) Versus BHAGAT BROTHERS & 5 - Defendant(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR HJ BHATT for Appellant(s) : 1, NOTICE SERVED for Defendant(s) : 1,3 - 4. MR RN SHAH for Defendant(s) : 2,5 - 6. ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE KS JHAVERI Date : 11/08/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1.0. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 18th December, 1989, passed by the learned City Civil Court, in Civil Suit No. 4047 of 1987, whereby FA/193219/1990 2/3 JUDGMENT the said suit is dismissed. 2.0. The short facts of the case are :- 2.1. The appellant-original plaintiff was a partner in the partnership firm of the respondents-original defendants. It is the case of the appellant that the appellant along with three other partners retired from the partnership firm and the necessary documents came to be executed on 13th November, 1980. It is further the case of the that if the respondents did not pay the amount due to his account within one year then the respondents had to pay interest at the rate of 12% per annum on the said amount. Since the respondents did not paid the said amount due to the appellant, the appellant filed a suit being Civil Suit No. 4047 of 1987 before the learned City Civil Court, for decree in the sum of Rs.78,430.56 with interest at the rate of 12% from the date of suit till payment. 2.2. The learned trial Judge, after hearing the parties and considering the evidence on record, dismissed the said Suit. Hence, this appeal. 3.0. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Upon FA/193219/1990 3/3 JUDGMENT perusal of the evidence on record, it is evident that the deed of date of retirement is 7th November, 1980 and the period of limitation for the recovery of such debt is admittedly three years and the same would expire on 6th November, 1983. However, the extract of account at Exh. 60 is dated 23rd January, 1984, which is after the expiration of the period of limitation on 6th November, 1983. Hence, suit is barred by the law of limitation. 4.0. In view of the above, in my opinion, the impugned award passed by the learned trial Judge is just and proper and no interference is required by this Court. Hence, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. [K.S. JHAVERI, J.] /phalguni/