KRISHAN LAL Vs. JOGINDRA CENTRAL CO-OP. BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The above appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Solan dated 12.9.1994 in Civil Appeal No. 24-NL/13 of 1994 whereunder the learned Judge, as a First Appellate Judge while allowing the appeal and setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned Subordinate Judge 1st Class, Nalagarh dated 15.1.1994 in Civil Case No. 328/1 of 1991, remitted the matter to the learned trial Judge to decide the same, once-again in accordance with law on merits.

(2.) The learned trial Judge chose to dismiss the suit filed by the Respondent-bank which was the Plaintiff seeking for the recovery of certain amounts said to be due from the Defendant-Appellant on the ground that the suit of the claim was barred by limitation. Aggrieved, the Plaintiff pursued the matter before the first Appellate Court and in the said appeal, the learned first Appellate Judge came to the conclusion that the limitation in the present case started from 31.12.1989 in terms of Article 1 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act and, therefore, the suit could have been filed within a period of three years from the said date, namely, 31.12.1992 and the suit having been actually filed in December 1991, the same was well within the period of limitation. Aggrieved, the above appeal has been filed in this Court by the Defendant.

(3.) Heard Mr. Deepak Gupta, learned Counsel for the Appellant and Mr. Ramakant Sharma, learned Counsel for the Respondent. There is and there could be no serious dispute or controversy over the factual position that the dealings between the parties was under a current, mutual and open account. In that view of the matter, it is Article 1 in the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963 which has been applied by the learned First Appellate Judge that would be really and properly attracted.