K. Harilal, J.

1. The appellant is the defendant in O.S. No. 187/2006 on the files of the Munsiff Court, Parappanangadi as well as the appellant in A.S. 105/2008 on the files of the Sub Court, Tirur. According to the plaintiff, the defendant had borrowed a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- from the plaintiff on 30.10.2002 and agreed to repay the amount within a period of two years. The defendant also agreed that if he fails to pay the amount within a period of two years, he will pay interest @ 12% p.a for the amount. The defendant borrowed, the amount in the presence of two witnesses and on that date, the defendant executed Ext.B1 agreement in the presence of witnesses. But the defendant did not pay the amount as agreed and therefore, the plaintiff demanded for return of the amount with interest. Though, the plaintiff caused to issue a lawyers notice to the defendant, the same was returned unserved. Thus, the defendant failed to repay the amount, despite the demand for the same and hence the suit was filed.

2. The defendant in the written statement denied the execution of Ext.A1 agreement and he contended that he never borrowed a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- from the plaintiff and he does not know the persons named as witnesses in the agreement and the plaintiff himself. In October 2002 the defendant had borrowed Rs.25,000/- from one Valsarajan and while availing the said loan, the defendant had handover signed blank stamp papers to the said Valsarajan. Later he repaid the entire amount due to the said Valsarajan and when he demanded back the signed stamp papers Valsarajan told him that the stamp papers would be handed over to one Mr. Balakrishnan to hand over the same to him but the defendant could not collect the same from him. The defendant further learnt that the present suit is filed at the instance of said Balarkrishnan, by using the signed blank stamp papers given by the defendant to Valsarajan.

3. On the rival pleadings, both parties admit the evidence consisting of the oral testimony of PW1, DW1 & DW2 and Exts.A1 to A4 and Exts. B1 to B3. After considering the evidence on record the trial court decreed the suit as prayed for. Though, the defendant had preferred the aforesaid appeal, the appellate court also confirmed the findings of the trial court and dismissed the appeal. This Regular Second Appeal is filed challenging the concurrent findings of the courts below whereby the contention raised by the defendant in defence stands rejected.

4. The sum and substance of the arguments advanced by Shri Narayanan the learned counsel for the Appellant is that the suit is barred by limitation. According to the learned counsel for the Appellant, Ext.A1 agreement is neither a promissory note nor a bond. Therefore, Article 19 of the Limitation Act is applicable to the instant case, for instituting the suit. So, the period of limitation starts from 30.10.2002 itself and expires on 30.10.2005. But the suit was filed on 4.7.2006 only. Ext.A1 cannot be treated as a Bond, in the absence of a specified day for re-payment, as required in Article 28 of the Limitation Act. The learned counsel for the appellant drew my attention to Ext.A1 and submits that in case, the defendant could not pay the amount within two years, the principal amount would carry 12% interest, after the expiry of two years. Therefore, the defendant himself was not sure about the repayment within two years and the time granted for repayment cannot be deemed to be a limited one, as required in a promissory note, as per Section 2 (k) of the Limitation Act.

5. Per contra, Smt. Parvathy Sanjay, learned counsel for the respondent contended that Ext.A1 is nothing other than a promissory note with limited time for repayment and default clause adds additional burden of interest only. It will not destroy or interferes with the limited time mentioned earlier in Ext.A1. Therefore, Article 34 of the Limitation Act 1963 alone is applicable to the instant case and neither Article 19 nor Article 28