The main legal point established is that the deposits made towards the repayment of a loan can extend the limitation period as per the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963.

DHIRENDRA MISHRA, J.

( 1 ) THIS first appeal under Section 96 of the Code of civil Procedure, 1908 is directed against the judgment and decree dated 23rd April, 2003 passed in Civil Suit No. 3-B/02 whereby the learned II Additional District Judge (FTC), bemetara has dismissed the suit of the plaintiff/bank as barred by limitation. (Parties shall hereinafter be referred to as per their description before the trial Court.)

( 2 ) THE plaintiff/bank filed a civil suit for recovery of loan of Rs. 3,11,880/- advanced to defendant No. 1 for purchase of tractor and trolley with the averment that the loan was advanced on 8-7-1985 after defendant no. 1 executed a demand of promissory note; letter of guarantee by sureties-defendants nos. 2, 3 and 4; Term Loan Agreement of hypothecation of Movable Properties; hypothecation of standing crops, as detailed in para 4 (A) (B) (C) and (D) of the plaint. The loan was repayable in half yearly installments in seven years with interest @ 12. 50% on six monthly rests. On failure of defendant no. 1 in timely repayment of the instalments with interest and expenditure, notices were served. However, when the defendants failed to repay the installments even after receipt of notices, recovery proceedings were initiated before the Tehsildar in the year 1993 as per provisions of the M. P. Public Money Recovery Act and the same were, subsequently, withdrawn. It was also averred that defendant No. 1 executed a promissory note promising to repay the entire loan amount in lump sum as per loan account acknowledging balance of loan vide acknowledgments dated 14-8-1995, 24-7-1996 and 30-1-1997. Defendant No. 1 had mortgaged her 29. 45 acre of agricultural land in favour of the Bank by depositing the documents described in Schedule B annexed with the plaint as additional security against the loan. Defendants Nos. 3 and 4 had also equitably mortgaged their property described in Schedules C and D. Defendant No. 1 had executed an Acknowledgment of Debt at the time of disbursal of loan and renewed the Acknowledgment of Debt in the year 1991 and 12th May, 1994 and accepted her liability towards the Bank as per her loan account with the Bank.

( 3 ) THE defendants, denying the averments in the plaint, averred in their written statement that the plaintiff/bank had instituted recovery proceedings before the Tehsildar. The defendants had submitted their legal objection against initiating recovery proceedings without issue of revenue recovery certificate. When their objection was rejected by the Tehsildar, they had filed a writ petition before the High Court of Madhya pradesh, however, after receiving notice from the High Court, the plaintiff in collusion with the Tehsildar, got the proceedings dismissed as withdrawn and filed the instant suit during pendency of the writ petition.

( 4 ) ON the basis of pleadings of the respective parties, issues were framed. Three witnesses namely Vijay Govind Goverdhan- Branch Manager, Sarjuram Yadav - Peon and Silvasto Toppo - another Branch manager of the plaintiff/bank were examined by the plaintiff. The defendants did not examine any witness.

( 5 ) LEARNED trial Court, while dismissing the suit by the impugned judgment and decree, held that the suit has been filed by an authorized person; the plaintiff advanced loan of Rs. 1 lac cash on 22-7-1985 to defendant no. 1, which was payable with interest @ 12. 50% p. a. on six monthly rests; defendant no. 1 had entered into an agreement to repay the loan in seven years in six monthly installments and failed to repay the six monthly installments; the defendant-deceased Ram Vishal was co-loanee and defendants Nos. 3 and 4 stood surety for repayment of the loan; defendant No. 1 had hypothecated the tractor and trolley with the bank for the loan, and the plaintiff is entitled to recover the loan by sale of the hypothecated property; defendant No. 1 had also executed an equitable mortgage of her standing crop against the agricultural loan and