CANARA BANK Vs. VENKATESH P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Ms. Nalini holding brief for Sri Urval N. Ramanand, learned Counsel for the revision Petitioner. In spite of service of notice, none has put in appearance on behalf of the Respondents.

(2.) THIS revision under Section 18 of the Small Causes Court Act arises from the judgment and decree dated 6.8.1997 whereby the trial Court had dismissed the Plaintiff's suit for recovery of money to the tune of Rs. 16,940.50 ps. on the ground that the Plaintiff's suit has been barred by limitation. It has not recorded any finding on the merits of the claim. The sole question is, whether the suit has rightly been dismissed on the ground of limitation?

(3.) I have perused the judgment and applied my mind to the contentions raised by the learned Counsel for the applicant. There appears to be much substance in the contention of the learned Counsel for the applicant. Article 23 of Schedule to Limitation Act provides, Description of suit, Period of limitation, Time from which period begins to run 23. For money payable to the Plaintiff for money paid for the Defendant, Three years, When the money paid