LAXMI CHAND YADAV Vs. ALLAHABAD BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant-defendant feels aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 3.11.1988 passed by Shri P.V. Namjoshi, Third Addl. District Judge, Jablapur in Civil Suit No. 12- B/85 and challenges legality and validity thereof in this first appeal under section 96 C.P.C.

(2.) Respondent-Bank filed the present suit for recovery of Rs. 39, 815. 31 P from the appellant on the allegation that the appellant had been granted over-draft facility to meet the requirements of civil works contracts by opening a mutual current and open account in his name. It is further alleged that the appellant withdrew the amount from the said account from time to time and also deposited various amounts in the said account. Later on, the respondent-plaintiff alleged that the appellant acknowledged the balance of Rs. 28,970.90 P on 30.6.83 by signing Ex. P -4. Even thereafter, it is alleged, that the appellant failed to make payment, as a result of which notice Ex. P-1 was sent to him recalling the advance. The said notice was received by -him on 14.12.84 vide acknowledgement receipt Ex. P-3. Since the appellant did not pay the amount even thereafter, the present suit was filed for recovery of the balance due on the said account. The appellant in his written statement admitted that he was allowed overdraft facility and an account was opened in his name. He however denied that he signed acknowledgement on 30.6.83 and submitted that the acknowledgement was forged. He also submitted that the suit was barred by limitation. Specific defence of the appellant was that the Branch Manager personally met him and wanted him to sign a paper acknowledging the debt but he refused to do so. That is how he claimed the document Ex. P-4 to be forged. Learned trial Judge, on the basis of evidence adduced by the parties, held that acknowledgement dated 30.6.83 (Ex. P-4) was signed by the appellant and was sufficient to bring the suit within limitation. Even otherwise, the learned Judge held that since the claim was based on mutual open and current account, it was governed by Article 1 of the Limitation Act and was within limitation. That is how the claim has been decreed and the matter is in this Court in this appeal for its consideration.

(3.) The submission of the learned Counsel for the appellant is that the Court has on its personal comparison, held that the document Ex. P-4 was signed by the appellant. Relying on Narayan Prasad v. Ambikaprasad,1963 MPLJ 235 it is submitted that such a comparison, is hazardous as the Courts are not experts in the matter. It is therefore submitted that in the absence of examination of an expert in the matter, the acknowledgement Ex.P- 4 is not proved in accordance with law. It is further submitted that the trial Court has wrongly held that the suit had not become barred in view of Article 1 of the Limitation Act. According to the learned Counsel for the appellant, account Ex.P- 5 would indicate that the appellant made the last deposit therein on 5.6.80 and hence the period of limitation would start running from the end of the year 1980. If the period of limitation is accounted from 1.1.80, the suit which is filed on 22.4.85 would be barred by limitation. Unfortunately no one appeared for the respondent - Bank to defend the impugned judgment and decree and therefore the Court is left with its own expertise to appreciate the aforesaid submission.