D. KRISHNAMURTHY Vs. DEVATHA SAREE SADAN AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is directed against the order passed by the trial Court effectively rejecting the plaint on the ground of limitation. It is a money suit and even though the Petitioner's learned Advocate was not present, the learned Judge has passed a speaking order whereby he has set out the relevant dates and he has very clearly held that since the last interest was paid on 6.1.2000, that the suit filed on 6.2.2003 is well outside the period of limitation. The contention raised by the Petitioner before me is that when the interest was paid on 6.1.2000 that it was for the period up to April of that year i.e. upto 5.4.2000 and the contention is that this would constitute acknowledgment of the debt up to that date. This submission is incorrect that even assuming we have to hold in favour of the Plaintiff on the ground that payment of interest on 6.1.2000 constitutes acknowledgment of the debt, the date up to which the interest is paid has absolutely nothing to do with extension of limitation because it is the act of acknowledgment on the date on which that act has taken place which will govern the point of limitation. The learned Judge is therefore right as far as the computation is concerned.

(2.) RELIANCE was placed on a decision reported in Smt. P. Vasanthi Vs. Smt. Vimala Martin and Another, ILR (1997) KAR 1127 wherein the learned Single Judge has opined that in situations where the dispute regarding limitation is a mixed question of fact and law, that the Court will have to frame an issue to this effect and decide it and that no summary decisions should be taken. That case pertains to a property dispute where the facts were ambiguous and consequently, some investigation was necessary. In the present case, it is purely a question of dates and there is no ambiguity and consequently that decision will not assist the present Petitioner.