Regular Second Appeal No. 3680 of 2010

-1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

Regular Second Appeal No. 3680 of 2010

Date of decision : July 05, 2012

Ram Niwas

....Appellant

versus

Somvir

....Respondent

Coram:

Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal

Present :

Mr. RA Sheoran, Advocate, for the appellant

None for the respondent

L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral)

Plaintiff Ram Niwas is in second appeal.

Plaintiff – appellant filed suit against defendant – respondent

Somvir for recovery of ` 91,385.94 on the basis of two loan transactions.

The plaintiff alleged that the defendant borrowed ` 31,000/- from the

plaintiff on 20.1.2002 and agreed to repay the same with interest @ 2% per

month in Rabi crop i.e. upto 30.6.2002 and executed Bahi entry for the

same. Defendant further borrowed ` 30,000/- from the plaintiff on

4.3.2004 and agreed to repay the same with interest @ 1.5% per month and

Regular Second Appeal No. 3680 of 2010

-2-

executed pronote and receipt for the same. The defendant failed to repay

the principal and interest amount. Accordingly, the plaintiff for first loan

claimed ` 31,000/- as principal loan amount and ` 23,973.44 as interest,

totalling ` 54,973.44. Plaintiff for the second loan claimed ` 30,000/- as

principal amount and ` 6,412.50 as interest till filing of the suit, totalling `

36,412.50.

Defendant failed to appear inspite of service and was

proceeded ex parte.

Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Charkhi Dadri vide

judgment and decree dated 7.9.2009 dismissed the plaintiff's suit on the

ground that he was money lender and had no money lending licence

although there was no such pleading or evidence. First appeal preferred by

plaintiff has been allowed partly by learned District Judge, Bhiwani vide

judgment and decree dated 24.2.2010 and thereby plaintiff's suit regarding

second loan transaction has been decreed for recovery of ` 36,412.50 with

proportionate costs throughout whereas suit regarding first loan transaction

has been dismissed as time barred. Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiff has

filed this second appeal.

I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the

case file whereas none has appeared for the defendant-respondent in spite of

service. He was also ex parte in both the courts below.

Regular Second Appeal No. 3680 of 2010

-3-

Counsel for the appellant contended that suit regarding first

loan transaction is also within limitation as the loan with interest was agreed

to be repaid in Rabi crop i.e. upto 30.6.2002 and therefore, the suit filed on

13.5.2005 within period of three years from the due date is within

limitation. The contention cannot be accepted. Firstly there is no clear

proof that the loan with interest was agreed to be repaid upto 30.6.2002.

The only stipulation in the relevant Bahi entry is 'Karar Sadhu Ka kiya

gaya' which neither refers to Rabi crop nor refers to any particular date

nor refers to repayment of the loan with interest. However, even assuming

that the loan with interest was agreed to be repaid upto 30.6.2002, even

then the suit regarding the said loan transaction is barred by limitation.

Limitation period for filing the suit is governed by Article 19 of the

Schedule to the Limitation Act as the suit relates to recovery of money

payable for money lent. Prescribed period of limitation is three years

commencing from the date when the loan is made. In the instant case, first

loan was given on 20.1.2002 and therefore, the suit filed on 13.5.2005 is

barred by limitation having been filed after expiry of limitation period of

three years from the date of loan. Consequently, there is no infirmity in the

finding of the lower appellate court in this regard.

Counsel for the appellant next contended that no pendente lite

or future interest has been awarded on decretal amount of the second loan

Regular Second Appeal No. 3680 of 2010

-4-

transaction by the l