SHITAL PRASHAD KALRA Vs. NARESH BAHADUR & ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Review APPL. 355/2017

(2.) The facts giving rise to filing of this Review Application are that in the month of May, 2010, the petitioner had deposited Rs.2,21,000/- in the bank account of proprietary firm of respondent No.1, Rs.1,49,000/- in bank account of respondent No.1 and Rs.1,50,000/- in the bank account of respondent No.3. These deposits were allegedly made by the petitioner on an assurance of respondents No.1 and 2 that the amount so deposited shall carry interest @24% per annum. The learned Additional District Judge-II, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi (in short "learned ADJ"), by its judgment and decree dated 06.04.2015 found that the suit of the petitioner for recovery of Rs.10,19,200/- having been filed on 23.08.2014 was barred by limitation.

(3.) While dismissing the appeal on 205.2017, this Court on appreciation of evidence found that there was nothing on the record to suggest that the amount deposited by the petitioner in the accounts of respondent No.1 and 3 was payable on demand and as such Article 22 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is not applicable. This Court has held that in fact Article 19 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is applicable which provides limitation of three years for the money lent and limitation shall run from the date when the loan is made. Since the respondent No.2 was made a party unnecessarily, cost of Rs.20,000/- was imposed on the petitioner payable to respondent No.2.