SATISH KUMAR Vs. REENA BHOUMIK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) (ORAL) This case is on the Regular Board of this Court since 26.3.2012. No one appears for the parties although it is 12.35 P.M. I have therefore perused the record and am proceeding to dispose of the appeal.

(2.) THE challenge by means of this Regular First Appeal filed under Section 96 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is to the impugned judgment of the trial Court dated 6.10.2006 dismissing the suit on a preliminary issue by holding that the suit was barred by limitation.

(3.) A reading of the aforesaid paras shows that the trial Court has held that period of limitation of every loan granted is three years and the suit has to be filed under Article 19 within three years of the loan being granted. This reasoning of the trial Court is ex facie incorrect because loan can be granted to be repayable after a particular period of time of, let us say one year, two years, three years and so on. Limitation to recover the loan on the cause of action will arise on the date when the loan is not repaid i.e. not from the date of grant of the loan but after one year or two years or three years of grant of loan when cause of action will arise to file the suit for recovery of amount. The period of limitation will be three years from the date of default i.e. the date when the loan ought to have been repaid but is not repaid. Such suits for recovery of loan granted will not be governed by Article 19 of the Limitation Act, 1963, and in fact will be governed by Article 113 of the Limitation Act, 1963 which states that a suit has to be filed within three years from arising of cause of action.