Mr. L.N. Mittal, J.: (Oral) - Plaintiff Ram Niwas is in second appeal.

2. Plaintiff – appellant filed suit against defendant – respondent Somvir for recovery of Rs.91,385.94 on the basis of two loan transactions. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant borrowed Rs.31,000/- from the plaintiff on 20.1.2002 and agreed to repay the same with interest @ 2% per month in Rabi crop i.e. upto 30.6.2002 and executed Bahi entry for the same. Defendant further borrowed Rs.30,000/- from the plaintiff on 4.3.2004 and agreed to repay the same with interest @ 1.5% per month and executed pronote and receipt for the same. The defendant failed to repay the principal and interest amount. Accordingly, the plaintiff for first loan claimed Rs.31,000/- as principal loan amount and Rs.23,973.44 as interest, totalling Rs.54,973.44. Plaintiff for the second loan claimed Rs.30,000/- as principal amount and Rs.6,412.50 as interest till filing of the suit, totalling Rs.36,412.50.

3. Defendant failed to appear inspite of service and was proceeded ex parte.

4. Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Charkhi Dadri vide judgment and decree dated 7.9.2009 dismissed the plaintiff’s suit on the ground that he was money lender and had no money lending licence although there was no such pleading or evidence. First appeal preferred by plaintiff has been allowed partly by learned District Judge, Bhiwani vide judgment and decree dated 24.2.2010 and thereby plaintiff’s suit regarding second loan transaction has been decreed for recovery of Rs.36,412.50 with proportionate costs throughout whereas suit regarding first loan transaction has been dismissed as time barred. Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiff has filed this second appeal.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the case file whereas none has appeared for the defendant-respondent in spite of service. He was also ex parte in both the courts below.

6. Counsel for the appellant contended that suit regarding first loan transaction is also within limitation as the loan with interest was agreed to be repaid in Rabi crop i.e. upto 30.6.2002 and therefore, the suit filed on 13.5.2005 within period of three years from the due date is within limitation. The contention cannot be accepted. Firstly there is no clear proof that the loan with interest was agreed to be repaid upto 30.6.2002. The only stipulation in the relevant Bahi entry is ‘Karar Sadhu Ka kiya gaya’ which neither refers to Rabi crop nor refers to any particular date nor refers to repayment of the loan with interest. However, even assuming that the loan with interest was agreed to be repaid upto 30.6.2002, even then the suit regarding the said loan transaction is barred by limitation. Limitation period for filing the suit is governed by Article 19 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act as the suit relates to recovery of money payable for money lent. Prescribed period of limitation is three years commencing from the date when the loan is made. In the instant case, first loan was given on 20.1.2002 and therefore, the suit filed on 13.5.2005 is barred by limitation having been filed after expiry of limitation period of three years from the date of loan. Consequently, there is no infirmity in the finding of the lower appellate court in this regard.

7. Counsel for the appellant next contended that no pendente lite or future interest has been awarded on decretal amount of the second loan transaction by the lower appellate court. It was thus prayed that pendente lite and future interest be awarded on the decretal amount. There is considerable merit in the contention. No reason has been assigned by the lower appellate court for not awarding pendente lite and future interest on the decretal amount. Ordinarily in case of money decree, pendente lite and future interest should be awarded unless there is any special circumstance to deny the same. In the instant case, there is no special or exceptional circumstance to deny pendente lite and futu