SETH RAMDAYAL JAT VS. LAXMI PRASAD

S. B. SINHA, J.

( 1 ) LEAVE granted.

( 2 ) WHAT would be the period of limitation for institution of a suit for recovery of 'pledged ornaments' is the question involved herein.

( 3 ) IT arises in the following factual matrix: on or about 26. 06. 1998, the respondent filed a civil suit against the appellant for recovery of certain items of jewellery allegedly pledged with him on 2. 12. 1987 for the purpose of obtaining loan of a sum of Rs. 7000/ -. On the premise that the appellant had violated the provisions of the madhya Pradesh Money Lenders Act, 1934 in relation to the aforementioned grant of loan, a criminal proceeding was initiated against him, which was marked as Case No. 511 of 1997. In the said criminal case, he admitted his guilt. A fine of Rs. 150/- was imposed on him. The charge was read over to him, which reads as under:

"the charge on you is that before date 29. 3. 97 complainant Laxmi Prasad was paid borrowed money to you but even after that you were demanding interest at 5%. Your this act is criminal offence under section 3, 4 of Money lenders Act. Therefore, show cause as to why you should not be held guilty of the said offence. "

(