( 1 ) PLAINTIFF has come up in revision feeling aggrieved by the impugned order of the learned Senior Sub Judge holding her suit under order 37 Civil Procedure Code to be barred by time.

( 2 ) THE relevant facts are jejune. The plaintiff had advanced a loan of Rs. 3000. 00 to the respondent by issuing a cheque on 27. 8. 81. Interest was agreed to be paid by the defendant at the rate of 18% p. a. Interest as agreed was paid upto 27. 2. 82. The defendant issued a cheque for Rs. 270 drawn on 16. 4. 84 on account of interest for the period 28. 2. 82 to 28. 3. 83. The cheque when presented by the plaintiff to the bank was dishonoured for want of funds. The suit was filed on 4. 4. 87.

( 3 ) IN this case answer to the question whether the suit is barred by time or is within limitation is to be found in Section 19 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The learned Senior Sub Judge has held that a dishonoured cheque cannot be treated to be payment on account of debt within the meaning of S. 19 of the Limitation Act and hence the cheque dated 16. 4. 84 would not extend or renew the period of limitation.

( 4 ) THE relevant part of S. 19 of the Limitation Act 1963 reads as under :

"where payment on account of a debt or of interest on a legacy is made before the expiration of the prescribed period by the person liable to pay the debt or legacy or by his agent duly authorised in this behalf, a fresh period of limitation shall be computed from the time when the payment was made"

( 6 ) A payment by cheque satisfies the requirement of Section 19 inasmuch as the acknowledgement of payment appears in the handwriting of or in a writing signed by the person making the payment in the form of a cheque.

( 7 ) A direct authority available on the point is Gori Lal v. Ramjee Lal, AIR 1961 MP 346, wherein on a review of the available case law on the point, a learned single Judge of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh has held :

"if one bears in mind that the word "payment" has been used in two different senses, it would be clear that the moment the negotiable instrument is handed over and accepted by the creditor and is in the debtor s handwriting, there has been a payment for the purposes of Section 20, Limitation Act and a fresh period of limitation has already started.

IF the negotiable instrument is dishonoured subsequently the creditor, no doubt, can fall back on his original claim. But the new term of limitation of the subsequent happening. To link S. 20 with the subsequent honouring of the negotiable instrument would indeed lead to absurd results. The debtor has intended and at all events represented to the creditor that the negotiable instrument is good, and thereby the creditor has for his part, been given a feeling of security with a fresh term of limitation.

IF it turns out that the debtor s negotiable instrument is dishonoured (or as for that matter the currency notes that he has given turn out to be counterfeit) this fresh term of limitation cannot be blocked. Again, if one looks to the equity side of it, a payment which the debtor means as a sheer pretence, but the creditor accepts as genuine, cannot certainly deprive the latter of what S. 20 has already given him.

THUS I would hold that the passing of the cheque is payment for the purpose of S. 20 and if the other conditions were fulfilled, a fresh term of limitation started from that date, whether or not it is subsequently honoured. That way the suit of the plaintiff was not time-barred. "

( 8 ) THE abovesaid single Bench view has been approved by a Division Bench of High Court of MP in Balchand Bhandari v. India Pictures and Ors. AIR 1967 MP 280 (PARA 11 ).

( 9 ) SO is the view taken by the HC of Calcutta in Mauris Mayahas v. W. Morley and Ors AIR 1925 Cal 937 holding :

"if a cheque is given in part payment of a debt, the fresh period of limitation under S. 20 should be computed from the actual giving of the cheque and not from the time when the Bank pays cash for it.

( 10 ) I am in respe