1. This revision has been filed by the plaintiff under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure challenging the judgment and decree dated 5.12.2008 passed by First Additional District Judge, Khargone in Regular Civil Appeal No.7 - B/08 setting aside the judgment and decree dated 9.5.2008 passed by Civil Judge Class-II in Civil Suit No. 2-B/06.

2. On 6-1-2006 the applicant/plaintiff filed a suit against the non-applicant/defendant for recovery of Rs. 20,000/- with interest on the basis of 'Kararnama' dated 10.12.2002 (Ex.P/1) executed between the plaintiff and the defendant.

3. As per the plaint averments and the condition of the 'Kararnama' (Ex. P11) amount of Rs. 20,000/- was lent by the plaintiff to the defendant for his personal needs for a period of one year and the amount was to be repaid with interest @ 24% per annum by the defendant within one year. However is the amount was not repaid by the defendant in spite of demand, the suit as foresaid was filed.

4. The suit was contested by the defendant. The trial Court framed issues and after appreciation of the evidence led by the parties decreed the plaintiffs unit with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing of the lit till judgment, with further interest at the rate 6% per annum from the date of judgment and decree till payment.

5. The aforesaid judgment and decree passed by the trial Court was challenged by the defendant in regular Civil Appeal No. 7-B/08. The Appellate Court though affirmed the findings recorded by the trial Court on merits with modification in regard to the rate of interest awarded by the trial Court, but allowed the defendant's appeal and dismissed the plaintiff's suit on the ground of limitation holding that the suit was barred by limitation. The Appellant Court held that in view of the Article 19 of the Limitation Act, 1963 the suit was required to be filed within 3 years from 10.12.2002 on which date the 'Kararnama' (Ex. P/l) was executed. The Appeallate Court held that the suit could have been filed upto 10.12.2005 and the same having been filed on 6.1.2006 is barred by limitation.

6. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court the plaintiff has filed this revision as the subject -matter of the original suit is for recovery of money not execeeding Twenty Five Thousand Rupees and section 102 of the Civil Procedure Code puts bar of filing second appeal in the matter.

7. Shri G.M. Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for the applicant/plaintiff has argued that the First Appellate Court has acted with material irregularity and committed jurisdictional error in applying Article 19 of the Limitation Act, 1963. According to him in view of the 'Kararnama' dated 10.12.2002 (Ex.P/l) in which it was specifically mentioned that the loan is taken for a period of one year, no suit could have been filed by the plaintiff prior to expiry of the period of one year from 10.12.2002. He argued that the cause of action to file the suit accrued to the plaintiff only after the expiry of one year from the date of execution of document EX.P/l in the circumstances the suit which was filed on 6.1.2006 was within limitation in view of Article 28 of the Limitation Act, 1963 which applies to the facts of the case.

8. Shri Lokesh Mehta, learned counsel appearing for the non-applicant on the other hand supported the impugned judgment and decree passed by the First Appellate Court and submitted that the First Appellate Court has rightly allowed the defendant's appeal and has rightly dismissed the plaintiffs suit holding it to be barred by limitation in view of Article 19 of the Limitation Act.

9. In order to appreciate the rival contentions it would be appropriate to consider Article 19 and Article 28 of the Limitation Act which reads thus:

Description of suit Period of limitation Time from which

period begins to run

For money payable Three Years When the loan is

for money lent