An acknowledgment of debt must be in writing and signed to extend the limitation period; unsigned entries are legally insufficient.

JUDGMENT :

Alok Jain, J.

1. The present appeal arises out the judgment and decree dated 17.02.2017 passed by the Court below decreeing the suit of the plaintiff (respondent in the present appeal) for recovery of Rs. 1,86,656/- and also for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from alienating any portion of land as detailed in the head note of the plaint and the judgment and decree dated 28.11.2017 passed by the learned First Appellate Court whereby his appeal against the order dated 17.02.2017 was dismissed.

2. Succinctly, the facts of the case are that the suit was instituted at the instance of the respondent/plaintiff raising a claim that he is a Commission Agent operating in the New Grain Market, Faridkot, maintains duly recorded account books. The appellant/defendant took loan of Rs. 70,000 from respondent/plaintiff on various dates and duly acknowledged the debt by signing the appellant/plaintiff’s Bahi entry, with an agreed interest rate of Rs. 1.70 per hundred per month, as per the prevailing market practice. Subsequently, on 02.05.2008, the appellant/defendant sold wheat worth Rs. 32,861 through the respondent/plaintiff and thereafter withdrew cash on 17.06.2008, followed by another withdrawal of Rs. 50,000 on 21.10.2008. However, despite repeated demands, the appellant/defendant neither discharged her financial liability, nor repaid any amount and stopped further business.

3. However, on the contrary the appellant/defendant refuted the claim of the respondent/plaintiff and asserted in the written statement and took the preliminary objection that the suit is barred as the respondent/plaintiff had not complied with the provisions of Order 7 Rule 17 of CPC. The appellant/defendant further took the defence that she merely purchased Karyana goods from the respondent/plaintiff on credit and, being illiterate, was misled by the respondent/plaintiff into signing fraudulent financial entries. The appellant/defendant denied the existence of any loan transaction and alleged that the respondent/plaintiff had manipulated the records to unjustly claim repayment.

4. No replication was filed and from the pleading of the parties, following issues were framed by the learned trial Court below, which reads as under:

“1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery of suit amount to the tune of Rs.1,86,656/- from the defendant as prayed for? OPP.

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for permanent injunction, as prayed for? OPP.

3. Whether the plaintiff is not maintainable in the present form? OPD.

4. Relief.”

5. The respondent/plaintiff in support of his case had brought on record the evidences and examined the witnesses, as stated below:

“PW-1 Tarsem Lal-plaintiff himself stepped into witness box and tendered into evidence his duly sworn affidavit Ex. PWI/A and proved on record copy of counter foil as Ex. P1, copy of account as Ex. P2, copy of notice as Ex. P3, postal receipt as Ex. P4, acknowledgement as Ex. P5, UPC receipt as Ex. P6, jamabandi as Ex. P7, Bahi dated 29.12.2007 as Ex. P8, dated 17.06.2008 as Ex. P9, dated 21.10.2008 as Ex. P10.

PW-2 Sanjiv Sharma, Finer Print and Handwriting Expert who stepped into witness box and tendered into evidence his duly sworn affidavit Ex. PW2/A and also tendered into evidence his report as Ex. P11, photographs as Ex. P12 to Ex. P20.”

5.1. To rebut the claim of the respondent/plaintiff, the appellant/defendant examined the following witness:

“DW-1 Chhinder Kaur stepped into witness box and tendered into evidence her duly sworn affidavit as Ex. DW1/A and reiterated the whole facts of the written state