PRATAPRAI Vs. STATV BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE non -applicant No. 1 Bank has filed a suit against the applicant and non -applicant No.2 for the recovery of an amount of Rs. 43,440,15 P., alleged to have been due against them. According to the Bank, a cash credit limit was granted to the applicant upto Rs. 25,000/ - for providing working capital for a confectionery unit. This was given on 12.4.1983 for Rs. 15,000/ - and 17.12.1983 for Rs. 10,000/ -. On the basis of the cash credit limit given to the applicant, the applicant has withdrawn various amounts and deposited various amounts in the Bank. The statement of accounts, showing the credit and debit of the applicant and non -applicant No.2 upto 11.4.1989, was attached with the plaint. The statement of accounts, showing various deposits and withdrawals made by the applicant upto 15.1.1990, shows that the plaintiff is entitled to recover an amount of Rs. 43,440.15 P. from the applicant and, for that recovery, the present suit has been filed. The applicant raised a question that the suit, as it is filed on 5.2.1990, is barred by limitation, as the amount was sanctioned by the plaintiff on 12.4.1983 of Rs. 15,000/ - and on 17.12.1983 of Rs. 10,000/ -. Thus, the suit should have been filed within three years of the sanction and payment of the loan. Based on the plea of limitation, a preliminary issue was framed by the Court. It has been decided by the impugned order. According to the trial Court, the applicant -defendant had, on various dates, deposited the amounts towards loan and withdrawn the amounts as loan at his convenience. It was not a loan granted on 12.4.1983 or 17.12.1983. It is a cash credit loan, which can be withdrawn and deposited as the need is felt by the applicant The letter of revival, dated 19.7.1988, executed by the applicant is an acknowledgment under section 18 of the Limitation Act and acts as revival. The trial Court decided the preliminary issue in favour of the Bank.

(2.) HAVING heard the counsel, I do not find any substance in the revision. What was granted to the applicant on 12.4.1983 or 17.12.1983 was a cash credit limit, which enables him to withdraw the amount upto the limit of Rs. 25,000/ -, as may be required by him from time to time for the purpose of his business. He is also permitted to repay the amount withdrawn, if and when it is convenient to him and the amount is available with him. The applicant has withdrawn the amounts from time to time and also made deposits towards the payment of the loan from time to time. Obviously, therefore, the period of limitation in relation to each amount of loan withdrawn by him would be different and since the applicant has been repaying the loan at his convenience, the same will also be required to be taken into consideration. Under the circumstances, the learned trial Judge is fully justified in holding that the period of limitation cannot be counted from 12.4.1983 or 17.12.1983. In this view of the matter, it is difficult to hold that the revival letter, dated 19.7.1988, was not an acknowledgment within the meaning of section 18 of the Act. It satisfies, in my opinion, all the requirements of section 18, particularly the requirement of its being accepted before the expiry of the period of limitation and being specifically in relation to the liability. If the period is counted from the letter, dated 19.7.1988, the suit filed on 5.2.1990 is well within the period of limitation. For the discussion aforesaid, the revision fails and is dismissed with costs. Counsel's fee as per schedule, if certified.