The limitation period for recovery of loan commences from the date when the loan is repayable, and the dishonored cheque can serve as an acknowledgment under Section 18 of the Limitation Act, extending the limitation period.

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.

1. This Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is filed by the defendant in the suit impugning the judgment of the first appellate court dated 7.2.2017 by which the first appellate court has set aside the judgment of the trial court dated 15.3.2016. The trial court by its judgment dated 15.3.2016 had dismissed the suit for recovery of Rs. 2 lacs filed by the respondent/plaintiff against the appellant/ defendant as being time-barred. The first appellate court has held that the suit is within limitation and therefore the suit was decreed. I may note that the appellant/defendant though was served in the suit but he did not file his written statement nor did he lead any evidence.

2. The facts of the case are that the subject suit was filed by the respondent/plaintiff seeking recovery of Rs. 2 lacs and which the respondent/plaintiff pleaded was taken by the appellant/defendant for engagement and marriage of his two daughters. A sum of Rs. 1,40,000/- was given by the respondent/plaintiff to the appellant/defendant on 23.9.2010 and a sum of Rs. 60,000/- was given on 27.9.2010. The loan given was repayable after five months without interest and in this regard a document dated 23.9.2010 was duly executed between the parties i.e. signed by both the parties. The appellant/defendant is pleaded to have issued a cheque bearing no. 106452 dated 2.12.2013 for a sum of Rs. 1.50 lacs in discharge of his liability. This cheque was dishonored and hence the subject suit was filed.

3. As already stated above, the appellant/defendant in spite of service failed to appear in the trial court and failed to file the written statement. The appellant/defendant was therefore proceeded ex-parte. Respondent/plaintiff has led evidence and proved the various documents including the document dated 23.9.2010 as Ex.PW1/1. The evidence led by the respondent/plaintiff is referred to in para 7 of the judgment of the trial court and which para 7 reads as under:-

“7. In support of his case, the plaintiff has examined himself as PW-1. PW-1 stated and reiterated on oath the contents of the plaint. He has exhibited certain documents on record which are marked as under:-

(i)	Ex.PW-1/1	is the original receipt-cum-halafnama
(ii)	Ex.PW-1/2	is the original cheque bearing no. 106452 dated 02.12.2013
(iii)	Ex.PW-1/3	is the original postal receipt dated 27.08.2015
(iv)	Ex.PW-1/4	is the original reply to RTI dated 19.09.2015
(v)	Ex.PW-1/5	is the envelop of RTI
(vi)	Ex.PW-1/6	is the copy of legal notice dated 31.08.2015
(vii)	Ex.PW-1/7 & PW-1/8	is the original postal and courier receipt
(viii)	Ex.PW-1/9	is the original returned AR card
(ix)	Ex.PW-1/10	is the certified copy of order dt.15.07.2015
(x)	Mark	“B” is the complaint dated 20.01.2014

After recording the evidence, the matter was fixed for ex-parte final arguments.”

4. Trial court dismissed the suit by observing that since the loan was given on 23.9.2010, therefore the cheque given by the appellant/defendant dated 2.12.2013 is beyond the limitation period of three years from 23.9.2010, and therefore, such an acknowledgment has to be ignored and consequently once there is no acknowledgment the suit filed on 3.10.2015 with respect to loan given on 23.9.2010 is time barred. The first appellate court has set aside the judgment of the trial court by observing that the document dated 23.9.2010 itself categorically mentions that the loan is granted as an interest free loan of five months and therefore loan would be repayable five months from 23.9.2010 and consequently the cheque dated 2.12.2013 is within the period of three years commencing after five months of the document dated 23.9.2010, and therefore the cheque issued by the appellant/defendant and which