IMPORTANT POINT
An acknowledgment of payment must contain the debtor's signature to extend the limitation period; otherwise, the suit is barred by limitation.

ORDER :

Rakesh Mohan Pandey, J.

1. The present appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree passed by the VIIIth Additional District Judge, FTC Durg (C.G. in Civil Suit No.33-B/2003 dated 30.09.2008 wherein and whereby, the civil suit filed by the plaintiff was decreed and the defendant/appellant was directed to make payment of Rs.80,000/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum. It is also observed that the suit was dismissed for want of prosecution on 25.08.2005 and it was restored on 15.06.2007, therefore, the plaintiff would not be entitled to get interest for that period.

2. The plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of Rs.80,000/- with interest @ 18% per annum on the ground that a loan of Rs.1,00,000/- was advanced to the defendant and agreement Ex.P/1 was executed between the plaintiff and defendant on 08.09.1995 in presence of two witnesses, namely, Mahipat Singh and D.N. Tiwari. A stamp paper of Rs.10/- was purchased by the defendant herself on 06.09.1995. The agreement would reveal that an amount of Rs.20,000/- was refunded by the defendant to the plaintiff on 25.03.1997. The back-leaf of the stamp paper was signed by the plaintiff in the presence of two witnesses but it does not contain the signature of the defendant. The defendant failed to refund the balance amount, therefore, registered legal notice was sent on 29.10.1998 but when the defendant failed to make payment, a civil suit was filed on 18.01.1999. It is further pleaded that the defendant was indulged in the business of beauty parlour and she was in need of Rs.1,00,000/-. She approached the plaintiff and in turn, the plaintiff requested one Mahipat Singh, who was a moneylender and managed an amount of Rs.1,00,000/-. As per further pleading, Mahipat Singh withdrew Rs.60,000/- from his bank account, took a loan of Rs.20,000/- from D.N.Tiwari and Rs.20,000/- cash, a total of Rs.1,00,000/- was given to the defendant by the plaintiff on the date of execution of the agreement. It is further pleaded that an amount of Rs.20,000/- was refunded by the defendant to the plaintiff on 25.03.1997 in the presence of two witnesses, namely, Mahipat Singh and D.N. Tiwari. The defendant filed a written statement and took a specific plea that a stamp paper was purchased by the defendant for the execution of a joint tenancy agreement and no loan was obtained by her. It is further pleaded that the defendant opened a beauty parlour after obtaining a loan from the bank and other sources. It is further pleaded that on 25.03.1997, Rs.20,000/- was not refunded to the plaintiff and the entry made in this regard is a forged one.

3. Learned Trial Court framed issues and held that an agreement was entered into between the plaintiff and defendant on 08.09.1995; Rs.1,00,000/- was advanced as a loan by the plaintiff to the defendant; Rs.20,000/- was refunded by the defendant on 25.03.1997, Ex.P/1 stamp paper is admissible in evidence and suit is within limitation.

4. Learned Trial Court vide judgment dated 30.09.2008 directed the defendant to make payment of Rs.80,000/- with interest @ 6% per annum to the plaintiff. The interest would not be payable for the period from the date of dismissal of the civil suit in want of prosecution till the date of restoration.

5. Mr. Tiwari, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant / defendant argued that the agreement dated 08.09.1995 Ex.P/1 is a forged document as no loan was obtained by the defendant to open a beauty parlour. He further submitted that the plaintiff and defendant wanted to open a beauty parlour and for tenancy purposes, a stamp paper was purchased and on blank stamp paper, the defendant had put her signature. He also submitted that the plaintiff in plaint has stated that Rs.80,000/- was advanced by Mahipat Singh and Rs.20,000/- was taken as a loan from D.N. Tiwari but no agreement was entered into between D.N. Tiwari, Mahipat Singh and the plaintiff which establishes that a fraud was played against her. He further argued that the