This is an unsuccessful plaintiff’s regular second appeal against the judgment and decree dated 8.11.2013 made in R.A.No.105/2012 on the file of the Itinarary Senior Civil Judge & JMFC, Madhugiri (sitting at Pavagada), confirming the judgment and decree dated 18.10.2012 made in OS 169/10 on the file of the Civil Judge and JMFC., Pavagada dismissing the suit of the plaintiff for recovery of money mainly on the ground that the suit filed by the plaintiff is barred by limitation.

2. The plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of money of a sum of Rs.30,960/- with interest at 2% per month from the date of suit till the date of realization contending that the defendant has borrowed Rs.18,000/- from the plaintiff for his family legal necessities by executing on demand promissory note dated 14.05.2007 agreeing to repay with interest at 2% per month. In spite of repeated demands the defendant has not paid the amount borrowed. Therefore the plaintiff was constrained to file the suit.

3. The defendant filed written statement denying the execution of pronote and passing of consideration and contended that there was no necessity for the defendant to avail loan from the plaintiff. The suit is barred by limitation. The plaintiff is a professional money lender having no license. There is no cause of action for the suit and therefore, the suit is liable to be dismissed.

4. Based on the aforesaid pleadings, the Trial Court framed the following issues :-

“1. Whether plaintiff proves that the defendant borrowed money by executing on demand promissory note ?

2. Whether the defendant proves that plaintiff is a money lender without licence ?

3. Whether the suit is barred by limitation ?

4. Whether plaintiff is entitled for the relief sought ?

5. What order or decree ?”

5. In order to substantiate the plaintiff’s case, the plaintiff was examined as PW.1 and two witnesses were examined as PWs.2 and 3 and marked the document Ex.P.1. Defendant was examined as DW.1 and no documents were marked.

6. The Trial Court on considering both oral and documentary evidence on record, recorded a finding of fact that the plaintiff proved that the defendant has borrowed money by executing on demand promissory note. The defendant failed to prove that the plaintiff is a professional money lender without license and held that the suit filed by the plaintiff is barred by limitation. Accordingly the suit came to be dismissed on 18.10.2012.

7. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree of the Trial Court, the plaintiff/appellant filed R.A. No. 105/2012 on the file of the Itinarary Court of Senior Civil Judge, Pavagada, who after hearing both the parties concurring with the findings of fact recorded by the Trial Court dismissed the appeal on the ground the suit filed by the plaintiff is barred by limitation.

8. The concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the Courts below did not deter the appellant from preferring this regular second appeal as a last ditch attempt.

9. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties to the lis.

10. Smt. M.V. Thanuja, learned counsel representing Sri. Erappa Reddy M., learned counsel for the appellant contended that both the Courts below erred in dismissing the suit filed by the plaintiff mainly on the ground that suit is barred by limitation ignoring the fact that on demand promissory note was executed by the defendant on 14.05.2007 and the suit was filed on 24.5.2010 on the reopening day of the Summer Vacation 2010, since the suit should have been filed on or before 14.5.2010, during the said period there were Court holidays therefore, it should be treated as the suit was filed within three years period after excluding the holidays. She further contended that both the Courts below failed to consider the provisions of Section 4 of the Limitation Act, thereby proceeded to pass the impugned judgment and decrees, hence sought to set aside the impugned judgment and decree of the Courts below.

11. Per contra, Shri. K. Murthy learned counsel for the