1. The appellant/plaintiff has filed this revision under section 115 of CPC being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 23.1.2006 passed by 8th Additional District Judge, Gwalior in Civil Appeal No. 1B/2006 affirming the judgment and decree dated 18.7.2005 passed by 8th Civil Judge, Class-I, Gwalior whereby his suit filed against predecessor in title of the respondent namely Munna Khan for recovery of Rs. 10,000/- was dismissed.

2. The facts giving rise to this revision in short are that the applicant herein filed the impugned suit against the predecessor of the respondent namely munna Khan the proprietor of M/s Kishan Rehat Industries for recovery of Rs. 10,000/-. As per futher averments such sum was arrears against Munna Khan, on 17.3.1991 by accepting the liability to pay such sum Munna Khan had executed promissory note of Rs. 10,000/- in favour of the appellant with assurance to pay such sum along with interest @ 1.75% per month within 120 days i.e. four months and later sum of Rs. 1,050/- as interest was paid by the deceased Munna Khan to the applicant on 17.7.1991 and when remaining sum was not paid by Munna to the appellant then the impugned suit for recovery of the same was filed 16.1.1994.

3. In the written statement by the predecessor in title of the respondents Munna Khan by denying the material facts of the alleged transaction if is stated that there was no arrears of alleged sum against principal defendant Munna. It is also stated that neither the alleged promissory note was executed nor any terms and conditions were settled between the parties. The amount of interest as stated in the plainnt has also not been paid to the appellant by the deceased principal defendant. The suit is also opposed on the ground of lacking proper cause of action and as per plaintiff herself it was an old transaction and accordingly the suit was not filed within the prescribed limitation, so the suit being time barred is not maintainable. The objection with respect of the validity of the promissory note in the lack of proper stamp duty was also taken. With these averments the prayer for dismissal of the suit was made.

4. In view of the pleadings of the parties after framing the issues, parties were directed to adduce their respective evidence, after recording the same, on appreciation, the trial Court has dismissed the suit holding that in the lack of the embossed stamp of proper denomination the alleged promissory note is not admissible and in such premises the alleged transaction was not found to be proved. The suit was also dismissed on account of non-examination of the plaintiff herself, taking into consideration that in this regard no explanation has been put forth by the applicant on record. However, the suit was held within limitation by the trial Court. Subsequent to dismissal of the suit the applicant had preferred the appeal under section 96 of CPC before the District Court. In such appeal a cross-objection to hold the suit barred by time, from the date of original transaction which had taken place in the year 1988, was also filed on behalf of the respondents herein under Order 41 Rule 22 of CPC. On consideration, by affirming the judgment and decree of the trial Court dismissal of the suit the cross-objection of the respondents was also allowed and taking into consideration the circumstance that the suit is filed after six years from the date of the original transaction which had taken place in the year 1988 the suit was also dismissed as barred by time. Thereafter, the applicant/plaintiff has come to this Court with this revision.

5. The applicant’s counsel after taking me through the record along with the judgment of the Courts below by referring the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in the matter of Gurunanak Medical and Surgical Agency Vs. Sitaram Shivhare reported in 2011(2) JLJ 138=2011(2) MPLJ 101 argued that the decision of the Single Bench of this Court in the matter of