( 1 ) THIS revision petition is filed by the plaintiff in Small Cause Suit No. 51 of 1996 aggrieved by the dismissal of the said suit as barred by limitation.

( 2 ) THE Petitioner filed the suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 1376/- being the principal and interest due on a promissory note dated 7-8-1993 executed by the defendant in favour of the Plaintiff for a sum of Rs. 800/- repayable with interest at rs. 2-00 per month and for subsequent interest and costs. The said suit was filed by the plaintiff on 7-8-1996.

( 3 ) ONE of the contentions advanced by the Defendant was that the suit is barred by limitation. In fact, in the written statement the defendant contended that he has paid the amount at the rate of Rs. 80/- per month towards penal interest and another sum of rs. 400/- during Dasara 1995 towards principal and therefore contended that he had discharged the promissory note executed by him in favour of the plaintiff.

( 4 ) THE Court below without deciding the genuinenss or otherwise of the claim of the defendant with reference to the payments made, though in fact such payments were denied by the plaintiff, but proceeded to decide the issue as to the limitation raised by the defendant. The Court below relied upon a judgment of this Court in the case of s. Laxmaiah (died) per L. Rs. v. Venkateswara rao (died) per L. Rs. where this Court held that a suit filed on 2-11-1971 basing on a promissory note executed on 2-11-1968 was held as barred by limitation and accordingly the Court below dismissed the suit. The plaintiff, therefore, has come up in the present revision.

( 5 ) THE learned Counsel for the Petitioner contended that the view taken by the Court below is illegal, erroneous and contrary to the provisions of Sec. 12 of the Limitation act, as per which the day on which the cause of action arose for filing of the suit, has to be excluded while computing the period of three years and if so excluded, after excluding the day of execution of the promissory note, the suit is well within the time. The learned Counsel also relied upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Saketh India Ltd. v India Securities Ltd. v. India Securities Ltd. where the Supreme court considered the provisions of Sec. 12 of the Limitation Act 1963 and held that the first day of the cause of action has to be excluded while computing the period of limitation. The learned Counsel also relied upon a Judgment of the Madras High Court in the case of K. Ramakrishna Landa Kathir v. Narayanaswamy. The learned Counsel, therefore, contended that the judgment relied upon by the Court below, which was rendered by this Court without referring to the provisions of Sec. 12 of the limitation Act but by referring only to Art. 36 of the limitation Act, is not good law in the light of the Judgment of the Supreme Court and, therefore, the Judgment of the Court below is liable to be set aside.

( 6 ) THOUGH notice is served on the respondent/defendant, none appeared and there was no representation on his behalf and hence the revision is heard and disposed of on merits.

( 7 ) THE suit filed by the Petitioner/ plaintiff basing on a promissory note executed on 7-8-1993 was dismissed on the ground that it was filed on 7-8-1996 and by that date the period of three years had expired and therefore the suit is barred by limitation. While doing so, the Court below relied upon a judgment of this Court in the case of S. Laxmaiah (died) per LRs. v. Venkataeswara Rao (died) per L. Rs. (1 supra ). A perusal of the above judgment shows that the suit was filed on 2-11-1971 basing on a promissory note executed on 2-11-1968. A learned Single Judge of this Court simply referred to the dates and came to the conclusion that prima facie the suit was filed after the period of three years. While coming to the above conclusion, this Court referred only to Art. 36 of the Limitation Act and in fact there was no reference to the provisions of Sec. 12 of the Limitation Act, which provides for

Click Here to Read the rest of this document