BANK OF BARODA Vs. S K AGGARWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Although as many as five issues stand framed on the pleadings of the parties, only the question of limitation has generated heat. It is common case of the parties that if the suit comes out unscathed with the help of section 18 of the Limitation Act, a decree for the sum claimed would follow. Is the protective umbrella of section 18 available to the plaintiff Bank? This, then, is the question. However, before I proceed to answer it, let me provide the facts.

(2.) . The case of the plaintiff Bank is that in or about October, 1972 the defendant was granted a cash credit hypothecation limit of Rs.35,000.00 which, on request, was enhanced in December, 1975 to Rs.40,000.00 . On August 21, 1976 the defendant requested for reduction in the rate of interest. This was followed on January 17, 1977 by a request for further facilities to enable him to repay the pending dues. On September 12, 1977 the defendant wrote yet another letter which, as per the plaintiff, amounted to acknowledgment of his liability. The grievance of the plaintiff Bank is that the defendant has not cleared his liability despite service of notice. Hence its suit for the recovery of Rs.1,10,421.65.

(3.) . The defendant, however, claims that there being no acknowledgment within the meaning of section 18 of the Limitation Act, the suit is barred by limitation. It is further claimed that the plaint has not been signed and verified and the suit had not been instituted by a duly authorised person.