The main legal point established in the judgment is that the limitation period for filing a suit on the basis of a cheque transaction is three years from the date when the cheque is paid, and a written agreement is required to postpone the right to sue.

JUDGMENT

This revision under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is directed against the order dated 10-10-2012, passed in Civil Suit No. 91-B/2012 by the First Additional Civil Judge, Class-II to the Court of First Civil Judge, Class-II, Bhopal, whereby the application filed by the applicants under Order 7, Rule 11 of Civil Procedure Code for dismissal of the suit as barred by law, has been rejected.

2. Facts in brief giving rise to filing of this revision are that the non-applicant/plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of Rs.1,50,000/- against the applicants/defendants, on the grounds that the non-applicant has paid Rs. 1,50,000/- by a cheque on 15-5-2009 to the applicants/defendants, as loan for the purposes of purchase of a shop situated at Bhopal Plaza, Bhopal Talkies Compound from one M/s. Balaji Associates. It was averred that the applicant No. 2 promised to return the said loan amount within a year. The cheque was given on 15-5-2009 which was got encashed on the same day. When the demand was made by the non-applicant for refund of amount of loan, the same was not repaid, therefore, a notice was issued to the applicants by non-applicant on 13-9-2011 through a counsel. In reply to the said notice, though it was admitted that Rs. 1,50,000/- was received by the applicants, but it was said that the amount was in fact refund of amount spent by the applicants in the Ring Ceremony of the son of the non-applicant. The said amount was refunded back by the non-applicant to the applicants by the cheque. It was further contended that since it was not a loan transaction, therefore, no money was to be paid by the applicants to the non-applicant.

3. Contending that from the said refusal, the cause of action accrued to the non-applicant, the plaint dated 22-6-2012 was said to be presented in the Court on 23-8-2012. The trial Court entertained the suit, issued the notices to the applicants and upon service of the said notice, a written statement was filed by the applicants jointly. The applicants contended that the shop was purchased for an amount of Rs. 9,41,000/- from Balaji Construction. The amount of the shop was paid by two cheques one drawn on 2-4-2009 for an amount of Rs. 4 lakhs and the other one paid on 15-11-2009 for an amount of Rs. 5,41,000/-. Thus, it was contended that a false story was concocted by the non- applicant/plaintiff that for the purchase of any shop, an amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- was taken by the applicants from the non-applicant as loan. Other pleas were also raised.

4. The applicants also moved an application under Order 7, Rule 11 of Civil Procedure Code seeking dismissal of the suit being barred by limitation. The said application having been rejected by the Court below by the impugned order, this revision is required to be filed.

5. It is contended by learned counsel for applicants that apparently from the description as made in the plaint itself, the suit was barred by limitation and was, thus, liable to be dismissed under the provisions of Order 7, Rule 11(d) of Civil Procedure Code. Reading the definition given in the Limitation Act, 1963 in section 2(c), it is contended that the bill of exchange includes a hundi and a cheque. Article 20 of Limitation Act would prescribe limitation for filing of a suit on the strength of a cheque which is three years when the cheque is paid. Article 35 of the Limitation Act prescribes that on a bill of exchange or promissory note payable on demand and not accompanied by any writing restraining or postponing the right to sue, the limitation would start from the date of the bill or the promissory note as the case many be. There was nothing indicated in the plaint that there was any restrain put that the claim would not be filed from the date of encashment of the cheque. Admittedly, the cheque was said to be encashed on 15-5-2009. No written agreement was executed in between the applicants and the non-applicant that the amount of loan would be refunded after a year, therefo