ANIL KUMAR SUNIL KUMAR Vs. ASHA RASTOGI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE challenge by means of this Regular First Appeal filed under Section 96 of Code of Civil Procedure, ('CPC') is to the impugned judgment of the trial Court dated 28th May, 2002. By the impugned judgment, the suit for recovery of loan granted with interest was dismissed, though, the appellant/plaintiff proved the claim of loan and interest, inasmuch as the trial Court held that the suit was barred by limitation and also because the provision of Section 69 of the Partnership Act, 1932 was held to be not complied with.

(2.) THE facts of the case are that the appellant/partnership firm gave a loan to the respondent/defendant of Rs. 5 lakhs by means of a cheque dated 25th November, 1989. The loan was to carry interest @12% per annum simple. There was no specific period fixed for the loan, and it is pleaded that the respondent/defendant from time to time only postponed payment of loan but made various payments towards interest. The plaintiff was forced to serve a legal notice dated 21st April, 1994, which failed to invoke the desired response. The subject suit thus came to be filed.

(3.) THERE are three main issues, therefore, to be decided in the present appeal. One is as to whether the suit is barred by limitation. The second issue is as to whether the suit is barred by Section 69 of the Partnership Act, 1932. The third issue is as to whether there was any agreement to pay interest.