DEVENDRA KUMAR Vs. UCO BANK AND ANR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) With consent of the parties, the revision is finally heard at this stage itself. I have perused the impugned order.

(2.) The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that on the pleadings of the plaint, the acknowledgement said to have pleaded by the plaintiff do not bring the suit to be within time. The payment relied upon by the learned court below said to have been made by the petitioner on 6.11.90 is also not supported by any material or pleading sufficient to attract the provisions of Sec. 18 of the Limitation Act. In this view of the matter, according to the learned counsel, apart from the other defence, the defence of limitation, in this circumstance of the case, is such which does require to be gone into and cannot be said to be wholly illusory or a moon shine and the petitioner is entitled to unconditional leave to defend.

(3.) Controverting the submissions, learned counsel for the non-petitioner submitted that it was a case of open mutual and current account for which limitation is governed by Art. 1 of the Limitation Act and computing the limitation from the last entry of the transactions, the suit has been filed within limitation. It was further submitted that from the statement of account produced by the bank, it is clear that Rs. 50,000.00 was deposited by the petitioner on 6.11.90 whereby the limitation stands continuously extended. Learned counsel further submitted that the defendant has not filed the affidavit along with the application for leave to defend. On this premise, it was contended that the petitioner is not entitled to leave to defend and therefore, when the leave was granted on the condition of Bank Guarantee by the learned trial Court no interference should be made by this court.