The endorsements made in the promissory notes extended the limitation period, making the suit maintainable.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to call for the records of the fair and decreetal order dated 06.02.2020 made in I.A.No. 304 of 2019 in O.S.No.224 of 2019 on the file of the Principal District Court, Dindigul, and set aside the same.)

1. The petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.224 of 2019 and he has filed the suit for recovery of money. Pending the suit, the petitioner has also taken out an interlocutory application in I.A.No.304 of 2019 for attachment of property under Order 38 Rule 1 & 5 CPC. The said application was rejected by the trial Court vide order dated 06.02.2020 on the ground that the suit was not filed within the period of limitation. Aggrieved over the same, the petitioner has filed the instant revision petition.

2. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner, as a guarantor to the 5th respondent, has paid a sum of Rs.33,00,000/- (approx) to the Tamilnadu Mercantile Bank / 6th respondent. In discharge of that liability, (late) Jeyachandran, Partner of the 5th respondent firm, has paid part amount and for the remaining amount, he has executed six promissory notes, however, he failed to honour the promissory notes and therefore, the suit was filed in the year 2019.

3. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the respondents are attempting to sell the properties to defeat the petitioner's claim and therefore, he has taken out the application under Order 38 Rule 1 & 5 CPC. The said application was rejected by the trial Court stating that there is no acknowledgement of liability in the pronote as required under Section 18 of the Limitation Act and therefore, the basic prima facie is not made out to sustain the suit.

4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner drew the attention of this Court to Sections 18 & 19 of the Limitation Act and for better appreciation, the same are extracted as under:-

“18. Effect of acknowledgment in writing:

(1) Where, before the expiration of the prescribed period for a suit or application in respect of any property or right, an acknowledgment of liability in respect of such property or right has been made in writing signed by the party against whom such property or right is claimed, or by any person through whom he derives his title or liability, a fresh period of limitation shall be computed from the time when the acknowledgment was so signed.

(2) Where the writing containing the acknowledgment is undated, oral evidence may be given of the time when it was signed; but subject to the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, oral evidence of its contents shall not be received. Explanation: For the purposes of this section,

(a) an acknowledgment may be sufficient though it omits to specify the exact nature of the property or right, or avers that the time for payment, delivery, performance or enjoyment has not yet come or is accompanied by a refusal to pay, deliver, perform or permit to enjoy, or is coupled with a claim to set off, or is addressed to a person other than a person entitled to the property or right,

(b) the word “signed” means signed either personally or by an agent duly authorised in this behalf, and

(c) an application for the execution of a decree or order shall not be deemed to be an application in respect of any property or right.

19. Effect of payment on account of debt or of interest on legacy:

Where payment on account of a debt or of interest on a legacy is made before the expiration of the prescribed period by the person liable to pay the debt or legacy or by his agent duly authorised in this behalf, a fresh period of limitation shall be computed from the time when the payment was made: Provided that, save in the case of payment of interest made before the 1st day of January, 1928, an acknowledgment of the payment appears in the handwriting of, or in a writing signed by, the person making the payment. Explanation. For the purposes of this section,