LAWS(KER)-1997-4-31

INDIAN BANK Vs. C. K. SYED MOHAMMED

Decided On April 11, 1997
INDIAN BANK Appellant
V/S
C. K. Syed Mohammed Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the decree and judgment dated 9th April, 1992 in SCS No. 33 of 1991 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Aluva. Plaintiff is the revision petitioner.

(2.) The plaintiff Bank filed SC No. 33 of 1991 for realisation of money. The first defendant obtained financial assistance from the plaintiff for the purpose of, purchasing a country boat and fishing net. The first defendant was granted a ' loan of Rs. 3,000/- on 7.4.1982, by way of security the first defendant executed a demand promissory note on 7.4.1982 for a consideration of Rs. 3,000/- together with interest at the rate of 12 1/2% per annum with quarterly rests. It was agreed to pay the amount in 24 instalments. As a further security for the term loan, the second defendant executed an agreement of guarantee dated 7.4.1982. In renewal of the promissory note, the first defendant executed a demand promissory note dated 28.1.1985 for a sum of Rs. 3,000/- and interest. By letter dated 28.1.1985 addressed to the Manager, the first defendant acknowledged the liability under the note. Subsequently, the first defendant in renewal of the demand promissory note dated 28.1.1985 executed another demand promissory note on 28.10.1988 for a sum of Rs. 1475.20 with interest at 10% per annum with half yearly rests. The plaintiff sues for money on the basis of the demand promissory note dated 28.10.1988, the plaintiff prays for realisation of money. The defendants' contention was that there is no acknowledgement of debt by the defendants and hence the suit is barred by limitation. The Small Cause Court held that the suit is beyond time and hence it had dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by the said decree and judgment this revision has been filed.

(3.) The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the court below went wrong in appreciating the question of law involved in the case. It is submitted for the revision petitioner that the demand promissory note dated 28.10.1988 is a fresh promissory note for consideration which is a time barred debt due to the bank. S.25(3) of the Contract Act provides that time barred debt is a good consideration for contract. It reads: