The main legal point established is that filing a suit on a Court holiday or beyond office hours at the residence of the Judge is permissible under Order 4 Rule 1 CPC and Instructions dated 2.9.1982, and the Judge has discretion to accept such filings.

V.M. Jain, J. - This appeal has been filed by the defendants against the judgments and decrees of the Courts below, whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff was decreed by the Trial Court and the appeal filed by the defendants was dismissed by the learned District Judge.

2. Balbir Singh plaintiff had filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 1,63,400/- (Rs. 95,000/- as principal and Rs. 68,400/- as interest) on the basis of pronote and receipt dated 19.4.1996, allegedly executed by Makhan Singh defendant (father of the present appellant) in favour of Balbir Singh plaintiff. It was alleged by the plaintiff that the defendant had taken a cash loan of Rs. 95,000/- from the plaintiff on 19.4.1996 and had agreed to pay interest @ 2% per month and had executed pronote and receipt in favour of the plaintiff in this regard. It was alleged that the defendant having failed to pay the principal and interest due thereon to the plaintiff, the plaintiff was entitled to recover the said amount from the defendant. On the death of Makhan Singh defendant, the suit was contested by the present appellants by filing the written statement taking up the plea that the suit was barred by time and also alleged therein that Makhan Singh had never taken cash loan of Rs. 95,000/- on 19.4.1996 from the plaintiff on interest @ 2% per month and had never executed the pronote and receipt in question in favour of the plaintiff. It was alleged that the pronote and the receipt in question were forged and fabricated documents and without consideration and that Makhan Singh remained ill and was a drunkard and under the influence of liquor, the plaintiff had succeeded in getting the signatures of Makhan Singh on blank pronote and receipt and the same were used for fabricating the documents. Various issues were framed, including the issue regarding limitation. After hearing both sides and after perusing the record, the learned Trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff holding that Makhan Singh had taken loan of Rs. 95,000/- from the plaintiff and had executed the pronote and the receipt in question in his favour and that the plaintiff was entitled to recover the amount with interest. It was further held that the suit was within time. The appeal filed by the legal heirs of Makhan Singh defendant was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, upholding the findings of the Trial Court. They have now filed the present Regular Second Appeal in this Court.

3. The learned counsel appearing for the defendent-appellants submitted before me that the suit filed by the plaintiff was barred by time and that the Courts below had erred in law in deciding issue No. 3 against the defendants. It was submitted that the suit having been filed on the last day of limitation beyond Court hours i.e. at 9.00 p.m. on 19.4.1999 at the residence of the Judicial Officer, it could not be said that the suit was within limitation. However, I find no force in this submission of the learned counsel for the defendant- appellants. It is the admitted case of the parties that the suit was filed by the plaintiff on 19.4.1999 at 9.00 p.m. at the residence of the Presiding Officer. Admittedly, 19.4.1999 was the last date of limitation for filing the suit. Admittedly, the suit was filed beyond the normal Court hours, which are from 10 a.m. to 4 p.m. for the Courts and from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. for the offices attached to the Courts. The learned District Judge while upholding the finding of the Trial Court on issue No. 3 and holding that the suit was within limitation had referred to the copy of the Instructions dated 2.9.1982 issued by this Court vide Circular No. 18958/Gaz.II/ IX.C.18 dated 2.9.1982 and addressed to all the District and Sessions Judges in the States of Punjab, Haryana and the U.T., Chandigarh, according to which the Judicial Officers could entertain the suit even on a Court holiday or beyond the office hours at their residence. The learned District Judge had also placed reliance on th