IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA R.S.A.No. 242 of 1997. Decided on: 1.5.2008 Union Bank of India. …Appellant. Versus Smt. Anita Gupta ..Respondent. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting ? No. For the Appellant : Mr. N.K.Sood, Advocate. For the respondent : Mr. V.D.Khidtta, Advocate. __________________________________________________________ Rajiv Sharma, Judge This Regular Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the learned District Judge, Solan, H.P. in Civil Appeal No.24-S/13 of 1996 dated 24.6.1997. The brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the Second Appeal are that the appellant-plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as the ‘plaintiff’ for convenience sake) had filed a suit for recovery of Rs.29,384/-. The defendant had filed written statement to the plaint filed by the bank. The trial Court dismissed the suit on 30.8.1996. The plaintiff-bank preferred an appeal against the judgment and decree dated 30.8.1996 in the court of learned District Judge, Solan on 11.10.1996. The learned District Judge, Solan dismissed the appeal on 24.6.1997. Hence this Regular Second appeal. ______________________ 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment ? 2 Mr. N.K.Sood, Advocate had strenuously argued that the judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below are not sustainable in the eyes of law. He also contended that the suit was within limitation. Mr. V.D.Khidtta, Advocate had supported the judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the record carefully. This Regular Second Appeal was admitted on following substantial questions of law: 1. Whether on proper construction and interpretationof the pleadings, the provisions of Limitation Act, 1963, vis-à- vis documents Ex.PC, Ex.PD, Ex.PE and Ex.PF, the suit of the plaintiff was within time? 2. Whether the learned Court below has mis-construed and mis-interpreted the legal import of documents Ex.PC, Ex.PD and Ex.PE by ignoring the same from the purview of Article 26 of the Limitation Act, 1963 as each document besides being acknowledgements also amounted under law to be an accounts stated and admitted correct, thus providing fresh and distinct cause of action? 3. Whether under law the plaintiff was legally bound to form each and every document as part of pleadings before relying on the same either for the purposes of acknowledgement under Sections 18 or 19 of the Limitation Act, 1963 ? 4. Whether the learned Court below has mis-construed and mis-interpreted the law relating to pleadings and Section 25(3) of the Indian Contract Act and was right in ignoring document Ex.PF from reliance either under Section 18 of the Limitation act or under Section 25(3) of the Contract Act solely on the ground of its non- incorporation in the pleadings, thus vitiated the findings? 3 5. Whether the findings of the Courts below on the point of limitation are vitiated for non consideration of the repayment dated 27.5.1985 evidenced through statement of account Ex.PW1/B ? 6. Whether the findings of the learned Courts below are vitiated on the point of limitation for non-application of the provisions of Order 7 Rule 6 CPC with respect to document Ex.PF ? Since the substantial questions are inter-linked, they are taken up together for adjudication. The plaintiff-bank had advanced a loan of Rs.15000/- and obtained demand promissory note Ex.PA on 18.1.1984. The deed of hypothecation was executed vide Ex.PB with the defendant. The loan was extended to the defendant on January, 1984. The suit was instituted on 12.7.1991. Mr.N.K.Sood, Advocate has drawn the attention of the Court to balance confirmation letters dated 5.1.1988, 2.1.1989 and 5.5.1990 Ex.PC, Ex.PE and Ext.PD, respectively. His contention is that if the balance confirmation letters are taken into consideration, the suit was within limitation. The contention of Mr. N.K. Sood, Advocate cannot be accepted. These Ext.PC, Ex.PE and Ext.PD were also signed beyond the period of limitation. Mr. N. K. Sood, then contended that the defendant had deposited a sum of Rs.250/- on May 27, 1989. This payment was also made beyond the period of limitation. Ultimately, Mr. N.K.Sood, argued that the defendant had entered on 2.1.1989 into a separate contract with the bank when he executed demand promissory note Ex.PF and agreed to pay a sum of Rs.22,950.25 to the bank with interest at the rate of 10% per annum. Ex.PF will not enlarge the period of limitation for the simple reason that it is beyond pleadings. The basis for enlargement of time of limitation were Ext.PC, Ex.PD and Ex.PE, 4 respectively. It has already been noticed by this Court that these three documents were also signed beyond the period of limitation. Consequently, there is no question of law much less any substantial question of law involved in this appeal. The findings of fact recorded by the trial Court and affirmed by the learned Appellate Court need not be interfered by this Court since the same are based on correct appreciation of the evidence brought on record. The suit filed by the bank was beyond limitation. Accordingly, the Regular Second Appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. ( Rajiv Sharma ), Judge. May 1, 2008. (GR)