( 1. ) FEELING aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 11-7-1994 passed by the 11th Additional District Judge, Jabalpur in Civil Suit No. 99-B/94 dismissing his suit, the appellant has preferred this appeal under Section 96 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

( 2. ) NO exhaustive statements of facts are necessary for the disposal of this appeal. In brief, the suit of the plaintiff is that defendant No. 1 applied to obtain loan of Rs. 24,000/- from the plaintiff-bank in order to promote its business and, accordingly, a loan to the tune of Rs. 24,000/was sanctioned and the aforesaid amount was paid to it by the bank on 28-11-1984 against a demand promissory note for the said amount duly executed and signed by the defendant No. 1 promising to pay a sum of Rs. 24,000/- on demand together with interest as indicated in the document. The said amount of loan was required to be paid quarterly. As defendants having failed to repay the loan amount, a suit for recovery has been filed on 1-3-1989.

( 3. ) SEPARATE written statements were filed by the defendants. In the written statements, inter alia, it has been pleaded that the suit is barred by prescribed period of limitation.

( 4. ) THE learned Trial Judge framed issues and thereafter recorded the evidence of the parties and ultimately came to hold that for want of documents as well as, as the suit is barred by prescribed period of limitation, dismissed the suit. Hence this appeal.

( 5. ) IN this appeal the respondents were served but they did not appear and thereafter SPC was also issued to them, however, they remain absent as such this appeal is heard in their absence.

( 6. ) IT has been contended by Shri B. M. Dwivedi, learned Counsel for the appellant, that the learned Trial Judge erred in law in dismissing the suit of the plaintiff being barred by limitation. According to the learned Counsel if Ex. P-6 is considered in proper prospective then the suit can not be thrown on the ground of limitation. In support of his contention he has placed heavy reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of Bhagwant Rao v. Mohammad Khan, 1977 JLJ 751. The appellant has also filed an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC along with certain documents on the averments that Shri Gopinath Agrawal, who was Branch Manager of the Bank at the relevant time, was under suspension as some cases were present against him. Shri Sameer Sen Gupta, Branch Manager who filed and was looking after the suit also died during the pendency of the suit on account of heart attack. In these circumstances, necessary documents including the application for advance of loan made to Shri K. L. Jain, proprietor of the defendant, could not be filed. As the documents have been discovered the same are filed along with the application. In support of the application an affidavit of M. P. Choudhary, Branch Manager of the plaintiff-bank has been filed.

( 7. ) I shall first consider the finding of the learned Trial Judge dismissing the suit being barred by the prescribed period of limitation. The learned Judge framed Issue No. 6 on the question of limitation and on going through Paragraphs 22 to 25 it is perceivable that because the loan was obtained by defendant No. 1 on 28-11-1984 and the suit was instituted on 1-3-1989, therefore, it was held to be barred by limitation. While considering the document (Ex. P-6) it was held by the Trial Court that because the same was not executed and acknowledged by the defendant within the prescribed period of limitation as such this document would also not help the plaintiff. On these grounds, inter-alia, the suit was dismissed.

( 8. ) BEFORE dealing with the findings of the learned Trial Judge I think it appropriate to re-write the relevant part of the document (Ex. P-6), which reads thus :-" if you are satisfied as to the correctness of this balance, kindly sign below and return this confirmation form entire. Should your confirmation be not received within one month from this date. Unite