Dr. Bhakthavatsala, J.

1. The appellant/plaintiff in O.S.No.2724/2003 on the file of Additional City Civil Judge at Bangalore city, is before this Court under Section 96 of CPC, praying for setting aside the Judgment and Decree dated 09.11.2005. made in the above said suit.

2. The brief facts of the case leading to the filing of the appeal may be stated as under:

The appellant/plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No. 2724/2003 on the file of city civil Judge at Bangalore city, against the respondent for recovery of money of Rs.2,59,518/- with interest at the rate of 24% p.a. In spite of service of summons on the defendant, he remained absent. On service of notice, the counsel for the defendant filed vakalath on 20.12.2003. But written statement was not filed within a period of 90 days. Permission was sought for filing written statement. The application filed by the defendant seeking permission to file written statement was rejected on the ground that the Trial Court had no Jurisdiction to condone the delay. On 02.09.2004, an application (I.A.No.IV) was filed under Order VII Rule 11(d) and Section 151 of CPC, praying the Court to reject the plaint on the ground that the suit was barred by limitation. The plaintiff filed objection to I.A.No.IV on 05.01.2005. On 09.11.2005, the Trial Court allowed the application filed under Order VII Rule 11(d) of CPC and rejected the plaint. This is impugned in this appeal.

3. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the suit was not barred by limitation. But the Trial Court, by a cryptic order, allowed the application and rejected the plaint. He further submits that the suit should have been filed on 12.04.2003, but it was a Second Saturday. Further, 13.04.2003 to 15.04.2003 were general holidays on account of Sunday, Ambedkar Jayanthi and Mahaveer Jayanthi. Therefore, the suit came to be filed on 16.04.2003 well within time. But Trial Court erred in rejecting the plaint.

4. There is no representation for the respondent/defendant.

5. Perused the Trial Court records.

6. In view of the grounds urged, the only point the arises for consideration is:

“Whether the Trial Court was justified in allowing I.A.No.IV filed under Order VII Rule 11 (d) of CPC and rejecting the plaint as barred by limitation?”

7. My answer to the above point is in the negative for the following reasons:

The suit for recovery of money is based on a promissory note. Promissory note came to be executed on 12.04.2000. As per Section 12(1) of the Limitation Act, the date on which promissory note executed shall be excluded. Therefore, the last date for filing suit was 12.04.2003. As 12.04.2003 to 15.04.2003 (both days inclusive) were general holidays, the suit filed on 16.04.2003 was well in time. The Trial Court, by a cryptic order, allowed the application filed under Order VII Rule 11(d) of CPC and erred in rejecting the plaint as barred by limitation. The suit was filed in 2003, the impugned order was passed on 09.11.2005, the appeal came to be filed on 07.02.2006 and the appeal was admitted on 17.08.2006.It is unfortunate that a simple suit for recovery of money is still pending for disposal due to non-application of mind by the subordinate Court. It is crystal clear that the respondent has filed a vexatious application for rejection of plaint. The Trial Court has passed the impugned order in a cavalier manner and the same has resulted in delay in disposal of the suit and therefore, it is a fit case to impose exemplary costs of Rs.10,000/-

8. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the impugned Judgment and Decree is set aside and award exemplary costs of Rs.10,000/- in favour of the plaintiff and as against the respondent/defendant. Refund Court Fee.

The defendant is directed to deposit the exemplary costs in O.S.No.2724/2003 within a month from today, failing which, the appellant/plaintiff is entitled to recover the same, in accordance with law.

The matter is remitted back to the Trial Court directing the parties to