S RANGANATHAN Vs. KAVARI ANIMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is against the judgment and decree of the court of the Subordinate Judge of Salem in O. S No. 293 of 1975. The unsuccessful plaintiff is the appellant.

(2.) THIS is a suit on two promissory notes. The case of the plaintiff briefly is as follows: One Selvaraj was employed under the plaintiff in his proprietary concern Lakshmi Paper Industries. The said Selvaraj thed in an air crash and the defendants are his heirs and legal representatives. The first defendant is the mother, 2nd defendant is his wife and defendants 3 and 4 are his children. According to the plaintiff, the said Selvaraj constructed a house and for the said purpose he overdrew large sums of money from the partnership firm Interpack Industries of which he was one of the partners. As other partners insisted upon the repayment, the said Selvaraj borrowed a sum of Rs. 5 ,000 from the plaintiff on 30. 5. 1972 and executed a promissory note therefor promising to repay the principal with interest thereon at 18% per annum. On the same day he borrowed another sum of Rs. 20 ,000 and executed another promissory note promising to repay the amount with interest at 18% per annum. Both the amounts were borrowed to reimburse the amount drawn in excess from Interpack Industries. It is the further case of the plaintiff that the said Selvaraj paid Rs. 1,000 on 25. 8. 1972 which was appropriated towards promissory note for Rs. 5,000 and another sum of Rs. 1,000 on 25. 10. 72 which was appropriated towards the promissory note for Rs. 20,000. The said Selvaraj did not pay any further sum to the plaintiff and he thed in an air crash leaving behind him the defendants as his heirs. Hence the suit to recover the money from the assets of late Selvaraj in the hands of the defendants.

(3.) POINT No. 1: The suit promissory notes are dated 30. 5. 1972 and the suit has been filed on 16. 6. 1975, more than three years thereafter. The last date for filing the suit is 30. 5. 1975. It is seen from the high Court Calendar that the Courts were closed at that time for summer vacation and reopened only on 16. 6. 1975. The suit has therefore been filed on the reopening day and is not therefore, barred by time. Unfortunately this fact has not been stated in the plaint and hence the conclusion of the court below is that the suit is barred by time. The point is found in favour of the Appellant.