A dishonored cheque does not constitute acknowledgment of liability under Section 18 of the Limitation Act unless properly issued by the debtor.

NIDHI GUPTA, J.

Present second appeal has been filed by plaintiffs against the concurrent judgments and decrees of the learned Courts below whereby suit of the appellants for “recovery of Rs.1,37,550/- on account of principal and interest on the basis of an agreement dated 7.11.2000/revival letter dated 7.9.2003/cheque bearing no.337960 dated 24.1.2006 for Rs.1,14,114/- drawn on The Haryana State Cooperative Apex Bank Ltd., Sector 20-D, Chandigarh”, has been dismissed by both the Courts below.

2. Brief facts of the case are that plaintiff No.1 Kanta Rani had constituted her husband Sant Kumar as her General Power of Attorney (hereinafter ‘GPA’) holder vide duly notarised GPA. It was the case of the plaintiffs that defendant No.1 had approached Sant Kumar and plaintiff No.2 on 07.11.2000 for loan of Rs.32,000/- which was agreed and paid to him in cash on the same date. It was pleaded that defendant No.1 in consideration had signed and executed an Agreement and agreed to pay an amount of Rs.39,200/- in 10 monthly instalments of Rs.3,920/- starting with effect from 07.12.2000 comprising of principal amount and interest @ 27% per annum. The defendants No.2 to 4 had stood as guarantors for defendant No.1 and signed the Agreement as guarantor. However, defendant No.1 had failed to repay a single instalment to the plaintiffs. Thereafter, defendant No.1 had signed and executed a revival letter dated 07.09.2003 thereby acknowledging to pay Rs.39,200/- to the plaintiffs. Defendant No.1 had then issued a cheque bearing No.337960 dated 24.01.2006 for an amount of Rs.1,14,114/- in favour of the plaintiffs. The said cheque was received back dishonoured with the remarks “Drawer’s Signatures differs” vide memo dated 01.02.2006. The plaintiffs had then served a legal notice dated 09.03.2006 to the defendants. However, as no payment was still made by the defendants, the present suit was instituted on 30.11.2008.

3. Upon notice, the defendants had filed written statement contesting the suit by averring that the suit had been filed on the basis of documents which are result of cheating, forgery and use of blank papers received at the time of giving of loan amount. It was admitted that defendants had taken loan of Rs.32,000/- on 07.11.2000, however, the defendants had also issued 10 blank cheques to secure the payment of the loan amount. Rate of interest was stated to be 18% per annum and not 27% per annum. It was further averred that the defendants had regularly paid 10 instalments. Every month the plaintiff No.2 received the payment of instalments and returned one cheque every month. However, no receipt was issued by plaintiff No.2. It was averred that on demand of receipt, plaintiff No.2 had assured that he is returning the cheques and as such, receipt is not required. The 10^th cheque was never returned by the plaintiff as he claimed that the same had been misplaced. The defendants had never executed the revival letter dated 07.09.2003 as averred by the plaintiffs. It was stated that the defendants had never met the plaintiffs since October 2001 as he had made the complete repayment of loan. Therefore, revival letter dated 07.09.2003 is a forged document by misusing the blank papers which the plaintiffs had got signed at the time of issuing the loan. It was denied that the defendants had ever issued the cheque dated 24.01.2006 for Rs.1,14,114/- in favour of the plaintiffs in discharge of any liability. It was contended that there was no liability of the defendants towards plaintiffs as full and final payment of loan amount