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. "

( 4 ) RESPONDENT thereafter, as noticed hereinbefore, filed the aforementioned Civil Suit before the XIVth Civil Judge, Class II, Jabalpur being civil suit No. 4-A/1998 for recovery of the pledged jewellery. The said suit was decreed directing the appellant to return the said jewellery or in the alternative a decree for a sum of Rs. 20,000/ -.

( 5 ) AGGRIEVED by and dissatisfied therewith the appellant preferred an appeal thereagainst. The said appeal was allowed by the learned XVIth additional District Judge, Jabalpur, holding:

(i) The judgment of the criminal court rendered on the basis of the purported admission of guilt made by the appellant was not admissible in evidence. (ii) An admission of the guilt on the basis of a wrong legal advice is not binding on the appellant. (iii) The suit was barred in terms of Article 70 of the Limitation Act.

( 6 ) THE second appeal preferred by the respondent herein has been allowed by the High Court by reason of the impugned judgment. The High Court formulated the following substantial questions of law:

"1. Whether the suit filed by the appellant was barred by limitation while the suit was filed within 3 years from the date of demand and refusal by the respondent? 2. Whether the admission of guilt in criminal case in respect of some transaction made by respondent is admissible in the present case to the extent of fact that there was transaction between the parties?"

By reason of the impugned judgment, the High Court opined that the suit had been filed within the prescribed period of limitation having been brought within a period of three years from the date of refusal of the demand to return the pledged ornaments. The question No. 2 was also determined in favour of the respondent holding that admission of guilt in a criminal case would be admissible in evidence being relevant to the fact in issue.

( 7 ) MR. Anurag Sharma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant would urge:

(i) The alleged pledge of jewellery having admittedly been made in the year 1987 and the suit filed on 26. 06. 1998, the same must be held to be barred by limitation. (ii) No document of pledge having been produced, service of notice by itself cannot give rise to a cause of action for filing a suit for recovery of the pledged ornaments.

( 8 ) MR. Rohit Arya, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, on the other hand, would contend:

(i) in view of Article 70 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the suit has rightly been found to have been instituted within the period of limitation. (ii) Having regard to the provisions contained in Section 43 of the indian Evidence Act, the judgment of the criminal court was admissible in evidence. (iii) In terms of Section 58 of the Indian Evidence Act, things admitted need not be proved. Th