Chandra Bhushan Bajpai, J.

By this first appeal under Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (in brevity "Code"), the appellant has challenged the legality and propriety of the judgment and decree dated 19-10-2001 passed by the Additional District Judge, Manendragarh Distt. Koriya in Civil Suit No. 4B/1998 whereby and where under learned Court below has dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff/appellant for recovery of remaining loan amount and interest Rs. 1,92,399/- and held that as the suit filed by the appellant/plaintiff is barred by limitation, the plaintiff/appellant is not entitled for any relief.

2. As per claim of the plaintiff/appellant, the respondent/defendant was working as Development Officer under the services of the plaintiff. On his request on 17-11-1990, loan was granted to the respondent for Rs.2,17,300/-. The defendant purchased a four wheeler bearing Registration No. MP 23 B 3140. The vehicle was hypothecated. The appellant gave loan for purchase of the said vehicle. Both the parties entered into an agreement on 17-11-1990. As per said agreement, the loan amount was to be deducted from the salary of the respondent; First instalment was of Rs. 2,265/-, last being Rs.2,125/- starting from the month of January, 1991. On 30-3-1994, services of respondent were terminated. The respondent after his termination not paid any instalment since April, 1994 and also not returned the said four wheeler to the plaintiff. Then the plaintiff filed a civil suit on 14-5-1998. As per pleadings, the amount due was Rs. 1,28,695/- till date along with interest at the rate of 12% i.e. Rs. 63,704/-. The appellant by filing said civil suit prayed that the defendant be directed to return Rs. 1,92,399/- and also the interest due after filing of the suit. It is submitted that cause of action arose on 18-12-1997. The defendant filed written statement, admitted the loan to purchase four wheeler, which was to be deducted on instalment as agreed from his salary but as the services of the respondent were illegally terminated, hence the agreement to repay the loan came to an end. The defendant prayed that the loan amount may be adjusted from whatever gratuity, PF and interim bonus deposited with the plaintiff, The plaintiff had not agreed on it. It is also pleaded that the suit is barred by limitation. Hence the suit may be dismissed as not maintainable.

3. Learned trial Court framed issues.

4. In order to prove their case, parties adduced their evidence and submitted documents in their support.

5. After affording opportunity of hearing to the parties, learned trial Court answered issue No. 1 as affirmative that till 15-5-1998, Rs. 1,92,399/- loan amount was due against the defendant. The trial Court further held that plaintiff failed to prove issue No. 2 that the suit is within limitation and held that as the suit is barred by limitation, the plaintiff is not entitled for any claim prayed for.

6. Against assessment on issue No. 1, the present defendant has not preferred any independent appeal or cross-appeal.

7. Against dismissal of the suit on the basis of the same being barred by limitation, the plaintiff has filed instant first appeal and the grounds taken in the memo of appeal are that the trial Court failed to appreciate the facts and evidence brought on record in its right perspective, failed to appreciate that the right accrues for recovery of suit amount, erred in holding that the suit is barred by limitation and as there was no any default clause in the hypothecation agreement, instalments were still payable by the respondent when the suit was filed before the trial Court and the suit was not barred by limitation prescribed. The vehicle in question still stands hypothecated in the name of plaintiff, delivery of vehicle ought to have been directed. With this, it is prayed that instant first appeal may be allowed, th