The central legal point established in the judgment is the application of the Limitation Act, specifically Articles 19 and 22, in determining the limitation period for suits related to money recovery.

VINOD GOEL, J.

1. Challenge in this appeal is judgment and decree dated 6th April, 2015 passed by the Court of Additional District Judge-II, Central, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi, by which the suit of the appellant for recovery of Rs.10,19,200/- was dismissed.

2. The respondent No.2 is the sister of the wife of the appellant/plaintiff and respondent No.1 is the husband of the respondent No.2. Respondent No.3 is the foster sister of the respondents No.1 and 2. It is alleged that on persuasion of respondents No.1 and 2, the appellant deposited a sum of 1,49,000/- on various dates in the bank account No.10001952591, State Bank of India, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi, of respondent No.1/defendant No.1. The details of the same are as under :

3. The appellant had also deposited a sum of Rs.2,21,000/- on various dates in the bank account of proprietor firm of respondent No.1 i.e. M/s Universal Infrastructure Phase-II, Mohali, bearing No.11971131000893, Oriental Bank of Commerce, Connaught Place, New Delhi. The details are as under:

4. On asking of respondents No.1 and 2 the appellant also deposited a sum of Rs.25,000/- each on 14.05.2010, 17.05.2010, 18.05.2010, 19.05.2010, 20.05.2010 and 21.05.2010 totalling to Rs.1,50,000/- in bank account No.10413775997, State Bank of India, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi, of respondent No.3.

5. These deposits were made by the appellant on an assurance of respondents No.1 and 2 that the amount so deposited shall carry interest @ 24% per annum.

6. The appellant alleged to have written a letter dated 22.02.2013 asking the respondent No.1 to return the amount so deposited with them. He also approached pre-litigative Mediation and Conciliation Centre of Government of NCT of Delhi, Vikas Bhawan, New Delhi, where the matter could not be settled.

7. In his suit the appellant/plaintiff claimed principal sum of Rs.5,20,000/- with interest @ 24% per annum from 01.06.2010 to 30.05.2014 amounting to Rs.4,99,200/- totalling to Rs.10,19,200/-.

8. Despite service of summons by way of publication in the newspaper Dainik Tribune the respondents did not appear before the Trial Court and they were proceeded ex-parte on 10th December, 2014.

9. In support of his case, the appellant had examined himself as a sole witness as PW-1. He placed on record 12 original pay in slips Ex.PW-1/1 to Ex.PW1/12 of making deposits in the bank accounts of defendants No.1 and 2. He also filed six original pay in slips Ex.PW-1/13 to Ex.PW-1/18 with respect to the amount which he had deposited in the account of respondent No.3. He also filed one original postal receipt Ex.PW-1/19 dated 22.02.2013 addressed to the respondent No.1. The copy of the report of pre-litigative Mediation and Conciliation Centre dated 22.05.2014 is Ex.PW-1/20.

10. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant, the Trial Court appreciated that in the month of May, 2010 the appellant had deposited Rs.3,70,000/- in the bank account of respondents No.1 and 2 and further Rs.1,50,000/- in the bank account of respondent No.3. However, the Trial Court found that the suit having been filed on 23rd August, 2014 was barred by limitation.

11. It is argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that the amount deposited by the appellant in the bank accounts of the respondents was to be returned to him on demand and as such Article 22 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963 (in short “Act”) was applicable and the limitation will start from the date of the demand i.e. 22.02.2013.

12. He further argued that the learned Trial Court has erred in applying Article 19