GOVIND PRASAD PATEL Vs. DHANI RAM PATEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is defendant's second appeal under Section 100, CPC. Arguments on the question of admission heard.

(2.) THERE is a concurrent finding of fact of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court that the defendant took a necklace from the plaintiff on 5-3-1990 but did not return it. The defendant executed the document dated 22-3-1993 (Ex. P-1) expressly promising to return the ornament before 30-12-1993. The defendant executed another document dated 9-1-1994 (Ex. P-2) promising to return the same before 31-5-1994. The Trial Court dismissed the suit as barred by limitation. The First Appellate Court has decreed it.

(3.) IT is argued on behalf of the appellant that the plaintiffs case is not covered by Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963 as the acknowledgement of liability as per documents Ex. P-l and Ex P-2 was not made "before the expiration of the prescribed period for the suit". To this extent his argument is legally correct and finds support from the decision of the Supreme Court in Sampuran Singh Vs. Niranjan Kaur, AIR 1999 SC 1047. In the present case there is not merely an acknowledgment but there is also a further express "promise to pay" and that brings the case within Section 25 (3) of the Contract Act. It is well settled that a "promise to pay" a time barred debt is a good consideration under Section 25 (3) of the Contract Act (Vimla Pradhan Vs. United Commercial Bank, 1990 MPLJ 819 ). A promise to pay a time barred debt is enforceable. Time barred debt is a good consideration for a fresh promise to pay (Bhansarlal Vs. Navalkishor, AIR 1958 MP 21 ). Written promise to pay a time barred debt furnishes by itself a fresh cause of action (Ghanshyamdas Vs. Ghasilal, 1969 MPLJ 501 ).