The limitation period for filing a money suit starts from the date when the money becomes due, which, in this case, was the date of the High Court's order directing the deposit of Indira Vikas Patra as a bail condition.

S.K.Chattopadhyaya, J.

1. Heard Mr. M.Y. Eqbal on behalf of the appellant and Mr. Marathia on behalf of the Respondents on the petition at flag A.

2. United Bank of India, the appellant has filed this application with a prayer to stay the operative portion of the order dated 10.4.1995 passed by the Subordinate Judge No. 1 Bokaro at Chas in Money Suit No. 7/91.

3. The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass:

This first Appeal is directed against the order dated 10.4.1995 passed by the learned court below dismissing the suit holding that the same was barred by limitation. Relief in the suit claimed was for realisation of Rs. 21,51,786.39 paise against the defendants. It further appears that reason for filing of the suit was that this Court by order dated 7.5.1987 passed in Cr. Misc. No. 734/87 while granting anticipatqry bail to the respondent directed him to furnish Indira Vikas Patra before the Certificate Officer. The total value of the said Indira Vikas Patra was rupees three lacs. This Court further directed that the said amount shall remain in the custody of the Certificate. Officer, Bokaro subject to final result of the certificate case from the highest court. When the certificate case was disposed of in favour of the respondents, the appeal against the order of the Certificate Officer preferred by the appellant also failed, the respondents have moved this Court in CWJC No. 3261/93 (R) for a direction to the Certificate Officer to return the said Indira Vikas Patra. A Bench of this Court by its order dated 13.1.1994 taking note of the fact that the Bank had already filed Money suit for realisation of the said amount, observed that merely because the said suit had been filed, in absence of any order of the Subordinates Judge, the Indira Vikas Patra deposited by the petitioner/respondent cannot in withheld. It was further observed that so long as the order is not passed by the Civil Court, the Bank cannot object to the withdrawal of the Indira Vikas Patra by the Respondent (petitioner in CWJC No. 3261/93(R) from the office of the Certificate Officer. After the filing of the suit the appellant-Bank filed an application before the court below for restraining the defendants-respondents from withdrawing the said Indira Vikash Patra from the certificate officer. Interim order was passed and the respondent was noticed. However, after preliminary hearing regarding maintainability of the. suit, the learned court below by the impugned order dismissed the suit, as aforesaid. The operative portion of the said order of the Court below reads as follows: I would like to point out that before the appearance of the defendants an ex-parte order was passed on the prayer of the plaintiff and the Indira Vikas Patra was conditionally attached which was lying before the Certificate Officer, Chas and the defendants were restrained from withdrawing the same. Now in view of the above order, the conditional order of attachment of Indira Vikas Patra is hereby vacated and the defendants are at liberty to withdraw the same.

4. Mr. Eqbal appearing on behalf of the Bank submits that if this part of the order of the learned court below is not stayed, in the event of success in appeal, the Bank will have no recourse to realise the said amount from the respondent.

5. On the other hand, Mr. Merathia, strongly objecting the prayer made on behalf of the Bank, submits that the amount which is lying with the Certificate Officer by way of I.V.P. belongs to the respondent. The said Indira Viaks Patra matured in the year, 1992 but as the said Patra does not provide for any interest after maturity, the respondents have already incurred a loss of about rupees three lacs by way of interest. He submits that if again this Indira Vikas Patras are attached by this Court till the final disposal of this appeal, the respondents will suffer irreparable loss which cannot be compensated by the Bank. He submits that if on the other band the Bank succeeds in the case, t