1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST APPEAL NO.40 OF 2007 Shri Fakirchand U. Tathed. .. .. Appellant v/s. Shri Chandrakant M. Mawadikar (Bambori). .. Respondent Mr.G.S . Godbole for Appellant. Mr.R.S . Apte i/by Mr.A.A. Garge for Respondent. ----- CORAM : ROSHAN DALVI, J. Dated : 12th June, 2007 P.C. : 1. The impugned order is rejection of the Plaint under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, on the ground that the Suit is barred by the Law of Limitation. 2. The initial loan is taken in 1989. The acknowledgment of liability is stated to be made in a letter dated 7.7.2002. The 2 loan has not been repaid. The letter dated 7.7.2002 is neither produced before the Trial Court nor before this Court. It is relied upon on the ground that the averment about the letter is not denied. 3. In fact, each of the above facts are admitted and do not need to be proved. On these facts alone, the Suit is seen to be barred by the Law of Limitation. The learned Judge has set out in detail the reasons for rejection of the Plaint. The rejection is proper. 4. It is contended on behalf of the Appellant that his Advocate was not heard and that, therefore, a written application was made on 28.9.2006 setting out that the Advocate is not heard and applying for an adjournment for hearing. The impugned order is dated 28.9.2006. The said application is also made on 28.9.2006. The application for adjournment alleging that the Appellant's Advocate has not been heard, has been disposed of by order stating that “Party and his Advocate absent. Order already ready. Hence rejected.” 3 Order of the same date is the rejection of the Plaint on the aforesaid grounds. It is seen that on the date of the application the Plaintiff's Advocate had remained absent; he was not available for hearing though the Applicant desired to be heard on the ground that he was not earlier heard. The learned Judge has recorded in the order of rejection of Plaint that he heard both the parties and also considered the submissions made before him. 5. Even in this Appeal, there is nothing further to show on merits. The Plaint is correctly rejected. Appeal is dismissed under the provision of Order 41 Rule 11(1) of the C.P.C. (ROSHAN DALVI, J.)