S L YADAV @ SURENDER SINGH Vs. MAOHINDER KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant herein had filed a suit in the Court of Civil judge for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 1,29,320/-. The foundation of the suit was a cheque dated September 30, 1999 for a sum of Rs. 61,000/- on which interest was also claimed and accordingly, the total amount claimed was Rs. 1,29,320/-. Admittedly, the cheque was dated September 30, 1999. It is not in dispute that based on the cheque the limitation for filing the suit was three years and the suit in order to be within limitation should have been filed by September 30, 2002. It was actually filed on December 10, 2003. The learned counsel for the appellant does not dispute these dates and also does not dispute that based on the cheque alone, the suit ought to have been filed by September 30, 2002. He, however, submits that in the facts of the case the appellant was entitled to the benefit of Section 18 of the limitation Act, 1963 as the respondent in response to a notice issued to her by the appellant acknowledged her liability as to the amount claimed. Notice in question was issued on January 6, 2001 and the reply to the same was given on February 3, 2001. In order to appreciate the submission of learned counsel for the appellant, it will be appropriate to see what the respondent had stated in response to the notice. In this context, paragraph 6 of the notice is relevant. It runs as under:-

(2.) A perusal of the notice particularly paragraph 6 goes to show that according to the respondent though a cheque for Rs. 61,000/- was issued by her in favour of the appellant but subsequently the cheque amount of Rs. 61,000/- was paid to him in cash and he was asked to return the cheque, which he did and the cheque on return was destroyed by her.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the contents of the reply to the notice were false to the knowledge of the respondent as the cheque always remained with the appellant and at no stage, it was returned to the respondent. It is submitted that appellant had misplaced the cheque which was subsequently found and on being found he initiated proceedings against the respondent under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and the cheque in question was placed on the record of those proceedings.