2004 Supreme(Bom) 684

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
(NAGPUR BENCH)
Kharche S.T., J.
Baliram Rupaji Nagulkar .... Appellant.
Versus
Ganpat Kashiba Tadas.... Respondent.
Second Appeal No. 473 of 1990, decided on 29-4-2004.
Advocates appeared :
S.C. Mehadia, for appellant.
M.B. Badiye, for respondent.

Headnote:Limitation Act, 1963 - Article 19 - Limitation for filing suit for recovery under Article 19. - Period of limitation of 3 years prescribed under Article 19 of Act for filing suit for recovery of Bank loan advanced on execution of promissory note. - The crucial question that arises in this appeal as to whether the suit filed on 30.4.1983 by the plaintiff for recovery of the loan amount is barred by the period of limitation. In this context, the appellate Court did not enter into the merits of objections raised by the defendant on the ground that the application (Exh. 22) submitted by the defendant was already rejected by his predecessor and therefore, he also overruled all the objections of the defendant including that of the limitation. The appellate Court adhered to this point and observed in the judgment that the cursory perusal of usanwar chitthi would reveal that it is dated 1.2.1981 but the minute perusal of the same reveal that the date 1.2.1981 stated immediately after the contents is written by a different ink at three places the date 1.2.1981 is mentioned, one immediately after the contents of the usanwar chitthi, the second below the signature of the scribe and the third below the signature of the attesting witness. The plaintiff and his witness Nikanth admit that the date 1.2.1981 immediately after the contents of usanwar chitthi is over-written. Nikanth has stated that he over-wrote that date with the pen with which he wrote the contents and he signed on the usanwar chitthi. But, the appellate Court refused to accept the contentions of Nilkanth because the ink in which the contents and the signature of Nikanth are written is of different colour than that of the ink of the date 1.2.1981. Furthermore, it appears that the year ’81’ was made to appear by rewriting over the figure ’80’. To wipe out the difference in the ink, the entire date 1.2.1980 was rewritten as 1.2.1981 written below the signatures of the scribe and the attesting witness. On the basis of these observations, the appellate Court drew the conclusion that when the usanwar chitthi was written, no date was there below the usanwar chitthi and all the three dates were written later on before filing of the suit. The variance in the colour of the ink by which the dates are written were taken into consideration by the appellate Court along with the material aspect of the matter that usanwar chitthi is written on the stamp paper dated 20.12.1979.

       The Court also minutely perused the usanwar chitthi and found that there is no reason to take a different view of the matter because the dates are written at three places and the figure ’80’ which was originally written was changed into the figure ’81’ by making interpolation in the document. The appellate Court was perfectly justified in taking into consideration the fact that the notice dated 19.1.1983 was served on the defendant wherein it has been clearly stated by the plaintiff that the defendant had obtained the hand loan of Rs. 5,000/- on 1.2.1980 and not on 1.2.1981 and that the contents of the notice are correct. Therefore, it is obvious that the judgment of the appellate Court is well reasoned and it would be obvious that the suit instituted after the period of three years would be barred by period of limitation under Article 19 of the Limitation Act as the suit has been instituted beyond the period of three years. No case has been made out for interference into the impugned judgment of the appellate Court. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed with costs.