A written acknowledgment of debt as a promise to pay under Section 25(3) of the Indian Contract Act can validate a recovery claim even if time-barred, thus distinguishing it from an acknowledgment under Section 18 of the Limitation Act.

JUDGMENT

Jyoti Singh, J. Present appeal lays a challenge to the impugned judgment and decree dated 23.11.2020, whereby the learned Trial Court has partially allowed the claim of the Appellant in the sum of Rs.1,80,000/- along with interest @ 5% per annum in Civil Suit No. DJ/551/2019, under Order XXXVII CPC titled as `Smt. Sushma Singh v. Sh. Ram Bhajan Pal'. Appellant before this Court was the Plaintiff before the Trial Court and Respondent was the Defendant and parties are hereinafter referred to by their litigating status before this Court.

2. At the outset, it needs to be noted that Respondent refused to accept the summons issued by the Trial Court and did not enter appearance. In the present appeal also Respondent did not appear, despite service and on 13.12.2022 Court proceeded to hear arguments in the absence of the Respondent.

3. The facts, which are in a narrow compass and as pleaded by the Appellant are that Appellant and Respondent were employed in the Central Vehicle Depot and were known to each other since 1993. In 1996, Respondent invited the Appellant to be a part of certain committees for making investments. It is the case of the Appellant that till 2012, Respondent was regularly paying back the money invested along with profits earned thereon. In the meantime, from 2007 Respondent starting taking loans from the Appellant, which also he was repaying till 2012, however, from the beginning of 2013, there were repeated defaults in repayment of the amounts due. As on 01.01.2013, liability of the Respondent towards the Appellant was Rs.1,00,000/-, which increased to Rs.1,10,000/- on 01.04.2013. Respondent returned Rs.10,000/- on 01.04.2013 but took a further loan of Rs.50,000/- on the same day. Subsequently, Respondent borrowed Rs.20,000/-, Rs.1,00,000/- and Rs.60,000/- on 01.11.2013, 01.06.2014 and 01.08.2014, respectively. As per the Appellant, Respondent had acknowledged on 01.02.2015, in writing, that he owed Rs.3,30,000/- to the Appellant and therefore, as on 08.12.2015, the amount due and payable to the Appellant was Rs.4,15,000/-, which included the interest component. Appellant lent a further sum of Rs.85,000/- on 01.11.2015 and Rs.95,000/- on 01.04.2018 to the Respondent. Appellant pleads that Respondent again acknowledged on 01.07.2018, in writing, that he owed a total sum of Rs.7,00,000/- to the Appellant.

4. Even after written acknowledgment of the debt on 01.07.2018, Respondent stopped paying not only the principal amount but also the interest accrued thereon and did not even respond to the legal notice sent by the Appellant on 27.03.2019, demanding Rs.7,00,000/- along with interest. This compelled the Appellant to file a suit on 26.07.2019, under Order XXXVII CPC before the Trial Court, from which the present appeal arises, to recover the money, admittedly received by the Respondent. Upon failure of the Respondent to enter appearance, within a period of ten days of the receipt of the summons, Trial Court proceeded to pass the judgment on 23.11.2020, after hearing the Appellant.

5. Trial Court decreed the suit only to the extent of recovery of Rs.1,80,000/- with interest @ 5% per annum from the date of filing of the suit i.e. 26.07.2019, till realisation, however, in so far as claim for recovery of balance amount of Rs.3,30,000/- was concerned, the Trial Court held that it was time barred. Relevant part of Trial Court's order, impugned herei