STATE BANK OF INDORE Vs. TARACHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by the plaintiff-appellant has been preferred against the dismissal of a suit for recovery of Rs. 20,337/-.

(2.) Briefly narrated the facts are that the plaintiff is a corporate body having its branch at Ashoknagar, Guna. The defendant had taken a sum of Rs. 28,000/- for his personal need from the plaintiff-Bank on 17.9.1981. The agreed rate of interest was 17.5% per annum. The defendant had pledged ornaments as security. It was agreed that if the amount exceeded the value of the property pledged the plaintiff will be entitled to recover the amount. Inspite of several demands no amount was repaid and a total of Rs. 57,504/- remained due till 30.6.85. A notice was given to the defendant calling upon him to pay the amount within 15 days together with interest which was served on 8.7.85. When the defendant did not take any heed another notice dated 23.7.85 was given. A decision was taken to sell the property and an intimation in this regard was given on 30.9.85. As the defendant did not object the property was sold for Rs. 42,100/- and the amount was adjusted. Thus, a total sum of Rs. 20,337.80/- still remained due. Hence this suit is for the amount together with interest. The defendant contested the claim and denied the allegations made by the plaintiff. The defendant, however, claimed that the suit was barred by time. The allegation with respect to signing over the revival letter dated 10.9.84 has been specifically denied. The learned Trial Court after taking necessary evidence and hearing the parties dismissed the suit holding that it was barred by time. Hence this appeal.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the appellant urged that the evidence on record shows that the loan was taken by the defendant as claimed by the plaintiff. There is a revival letter on record with respect of which statement has been given by P.W. 2, Ravichand Baxi, Manager of the Bank. In view of this revival letter which bears the signatures of the defendant the period of limitation is extended under Section 18 of the Limitation Act as it constitutes acknowledgement. He urged that there is specific statement of the witness that he had obtained revival letter dated 10.9.84 which was filed in Court in original and no cross-examination has been made. Consequently it has to be taken that there is a revival letter signed by the defendant and the period of limitation is extended. The suit is, therefore, within time.