IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a promise made in writing and signed to pay a time-barred debt is valid and enforceable under Section 25(3) of the Indian Contract Act.

JUDGMENT :

Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J.

A civil suit for recovery of Rs.69,000/- alongwith costs and interest was decreed by the learned Trial Court on 07.04.2015. The decree was reversed by the learned First Appellate Court on 15.10.2015 on the ground that suit for recovery of money was barred by limitation. Aggrieved, the plaintiff has taken recourse to Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

This appeal was admitted on 05.07.2016 on the following substantial question of law:-

“(a) Whether the First Appellate court has erred in holding that Limitation Period has expired to file the suit for recovery by plaintiff when defendant has specifically made acknowledgment for time barred debt by way of agreement which is valid as per Section 25(3) of the Indian Contract Act.”

2. The case

2(i) Suit was filed by the appellant on 01.06.2009 with the pleadings that:- The plaintiff deals in shuttering plates etc. for the purpose of construction of lintel; The defendant requested him for hiring 30 shuttering plates @ Rs.1.50 per plate on 01.04.2003; The plaintiff supplied 30 shuttering plates to the defendant accordingly; Defendant did not pay single paisa to the plaintiff; He returned only 7 (sic 9) out of 30 shuttering plates; The defendant did not pay any heed to the plaintiff’s repeated requests for returning the remaining shuttering plates and for paying the rent in lieu thereof; On 12.11.2007, an agreement was executed between the plaintiff and the defendant whereunder the defendant agreed to pay Rs. 25,000/- in lumsump towards rent of shuttering plates and also agreed to return 21 remaining shuttering iron plates hired by him in April 2023, dimensions of the shuttering plates were also mentioned in the agreement; Mode and modalities of payment of Rs.25,000/-was also given in the agreement; The defendant did not abide even by the terms and conditions of the agreement dated 12.11.2007; He neither paid the rent nor returned the remaining 21 shuttering plates, hence, the suit.

2(ii) In his written statement, the defendant inter-alia took the preliminary objection of civil suit being barred by limitation. On merit, his stand was that:- He being an iron smith deals in shuttering plates for the purpose of construction of lintel; He had not hired any shuttering plate from the plaintiff; Plaintiff and his relative Hitender alias Pappa had come to defendant’s work site and forcibly took away 9 shuttering plates; These shuttering plates were not returned by the plaintiff despite defendant’s requests; Upon this, the defendant reported the matter at Police station Chamba; Subsequently, the plaintiff alongwith his relative Pappa pressurized the defendant for withdrawing the complaint and to settle the matter or else he was threatened that he would not allowed to execute any construction work; The plaintiff had per-force obtained signatures of the defendant on some papers; The defendant had not executed any agreement on 12.11.2007 in plaintiff’s favour for paying Rs.25,000/- in lumsump as rent of the shuttering plates; Agreement dated 12.11.2007 is false, fabricated and result of fraud. The stand of the defendant was that the agreement dated 12.11.2007 was prepared by the plaintiff in connivance with scribe and witnesses in absence of the defendant. The agreement was void and not binding upon the defendant.

2(iii) The parties led evidence in support of their respective contentions. The plaintiff produced two witnesses apart from examining himself as PW-1. Plaintiff also proved on record the agreement dated 12.11.2007 as Ext.PW-2/B. Defendant stepped in the witness box as DW-1. No documentary evidence was adduced by the defendant.

2(iv) Learned Trial Court after considering the entire material found substance in plaintiff’s case. Plaintiff’s assertion of having rented out 30 shuttering plates to the defendant was held to be demonstrated on record. The execution of agreement dated 12.11.2007 was also proved on record. Defendant’s non-compliance to the terms agr