: 1 :

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

SECOND APPEAL NO.620 OF 1988

SECOND APPEAL NO.620 OF 1988

SECOND APPEAL NO.620 OF 1988

Central Bank of India .. ..Appellant

Versus

Gulabrao N. Shedage and Ors. .. ..Respondents

Shri P.S.Dani for the appellant

Shri S.G.Surana for the respondents

CORAM : P.V.KAKADE, J.

CORAM : P.V.KAKADE, J.

CORAM : P.V.KAKADE, J.

DATE : 23RD DECEMBER, 2004.

DATE : 23RD DECEMBER, 2004.

DATE : 23RD DECEMBER, 2004.

ORAL JUDGMENT:

ORAL JUDGMENT:

ORAL JUDGMENT:

1. This is an appeal preferred by the appellant-

Bank against the Judgment and Order passed by the Addl.

District Judge, Satara dated 20.11.1987 allowing the

appeal of the present respondent and setting aside the

order of the Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Wai

decreeing the suit of the appellant-plaintiff bank.

2. The plaintiff bank had filed the suit against the

: 2 :

defendants for recovery of the crop loan advanced to the

defendant no.1. The defendant nos.2 and 3 were sureties

to the loan. The defendants from time to time

acknowledged receipt of the balance dues last of which

was 9.4.1980 and the suit was filed on 15.6.1982.

. The defendants challenged the suit on various

grounds including the ground that the claim barred by

law of limitation. The Lower Court adjudicated the

dispute and came to the conclusion that the suit was

within limitation by virtue of fresh contract between

the parties contemplated under section 25(3) of the

Indian Contract Act and suit came to be decreed. Appeal

was carried to the District Court, Satara. The learned

appellate court judge after hearing the parties did not

approve the view taken by the trial judge and set aside

the order of the decree passed by him and allowed the

appeal and dismissed the suit on the ground that it was

barred by limitation. Hence the present second appeal.

3. I heard the learned counsel for both the

parties. Perused the record.

4. In this regard it must be noted that

: 3 :

disbursement of loan was on 19.12.1972, 20.3.1973,

4.7.1973 and 10.7.1973. The defendants had acknowledged

the debt by acknowledgement dated 27.11.1975. There was

fresh agreement between the parties with respect to loan

amount which admittedly is the amount which was

outstanding as on that date. The said agreements are on

record at Exh.21/1 and 21/2. With these admitted facts

the learned Appellate Court Judge has come to the

conclusion that since the acknowledgment was of

1.12.1978, it cannot be considered as an acknowledgement

of existing debt because it was beyond the period of

three years from 27.11.1975.

5. At the time of admission of the appeal the

s