The court established the principle that the plaintiff was entitled to a decree for the principal sum with interest and that the suit was not barred by limitation.

This is a suit filed by the plaintiff for recovery of money from the defendant.

2. Broadly but briefly, normatively but precisely, the case of the plaintiff as stood exposited from the plaint could be portrayed and parodied thus:

The defendant borrowed from the plaintiff a sum of Rs.5 lakhs, Rs.2 lakhs, Rs.1 lakh and Rs.1 lakh and executed four promissory notes dated, viz., 29.01.2001, 11.05.2001, 27.07.2001 and 01.08.2001 respectively in connection with the business purpose and agreed to repay the borrowed amount with 24% interest per annum. He paid, some amounts as revealed by the statement of accounts towards interest. However, subsequently, he issued certain cheques, which got bounced as he had no sufficient funds in his accounts. The statement of accounts enclosed with the plaint would reveal that the suit is not barred by limitation as within three years from the last date of payment of interest, the suit was filed.

3. Per contra, denying and refuting, challenging and impugning, the averments/allegations in the plaint the defendant filed the written statement, the sum and substance of it would run thus:

The defendant borrowed money from the plaintiff during the year 2001 and in consideration of the same, the plaintiff obtained promissory notes and also blank cheques executed by this defendant. The defendant also paid considerable amount to the plaintiff till the year 2005. The defendant so far paid a sum of Rs.14,35,000/-as set out here under:

2000-2001 Rs.40,000.00 2001-2002 Rs. 4,30,000.00 2002-2003 Rs. 4,56,000.00 2003-2004 Rs. 3,89,000.00 10.07.2006 Rs. 40,000.00 10.07.2006 Rs. 49,000.00 10.07.2006 Rs. 11,000.00 By cheque Rs. 20,000.00 Total Rs. 14,35,000.00 ============= The amounts so far paid by the defendant should not have been adjusted towards interest only; but, it should have been taken as one in discharge of the entire dues by the defendant. The suit is barred by limitation. Accordingly, he prayed for the dismissal of the suit.

4. My learned predecessor framed the following issues:

"1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for Rs.12,51,000/-with interest at the rate of 24% pa on the principal sum of Rs.9,00,000/- as prayed for ?

2. Whether the defendant has discharged the suit claim to the tune of Rs.14,35,000/-by post dated cheques?

3. Whether the interest claimed by the plaintiff is usurious in nature?

4. Is the plaintiff, right in crediting the initial payments towards interest and not towards principal?

5. Whether the plaintiff has cause of action to file the suit?

6. Whether the suit is barred by limitation?

5. During trial, before the learned Master, on the plaintiffs side, the plaintiffs authorised agent/Manager, Anandan on the strength of Ex.P1 executed by the plaintiff, examined himself as PW1 and Exs.P1 to P11 were marked. Despite opportunities given for cross-examining PW1, the defendant had not chosen to cross examine PW1 and participate in the trial before Master. Hence, the matter has been posted before me.

6. Today, also no one represented the defendant. Hence, I am of the opinion that the defendant has to be set ex parte and accordingly the defendant is set ex parte and I proceed to decide the matter ex parte.

7. Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff. Issue No.6:

8. This issue is relating to limitation and it is taken up as the first issue for discussion.

9. The suit promissory notes are Exs.P2 to P5. But the suit was filed only on 03.01.2006, obviously, three years after 2001. The question, therefore, would arise as to how the suit could be taken as one not barred by limitation. The plaintiff as well as the defendant in unison would admit that there were payments made by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff towards interest. Ex.P7 is the bank statement issued by Bank of Baroda showing the various amounts paid through cheque by the defendant to the plaintiff and the entries would clearly evidence and establish that even during the year 2003, several am