ORDER

S.S. Dhavan, J. - This is a Plaintiff's second appeal from the decree of the Civil Judge Bijnor reversing that of the Munsif Bijnor and dismissing the Appellants suit for the recovery of Rs. 850/- as compensation for the Defendant's failure to return 10 bundles of barbed wire. The Defendant Respondent Ami Chand needed some barbed wire for his personal use but the commodity was not available in the market. He learnt that the Antarim Zila Parishad had a few bunde les of barbad wire and he was permitted to borrow them on condition that by December 1950 he would furnish security for the return of barbad wire. He did not furnish any security and in September 1953 the Parishad sent him a notice demanding the return of the good?. As he did not comply with it, the present suit was filed in August 1954. The Defendant denied all liability. He contended that the suit was barred by limitation. He also alleged that he had borrowed six bundles only. The trial court rejected the plea of limitation. It held that the suit was governed by Article 53 of the Limitation Act and therefore within time. It disbelieved the Defendant's story that he had borrowed six bundles only and decreed the suit fo