Find a Lawyer

Suit No. 1084 of 1980 and C . M . A . No.1105 of 1984 , decided on 13^th May, 1984.

---O.VII, r. 11--Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Art. 64--Recovery of loan-- Suit for--Rejection of plaint--Limitation--Extension--Plaintiff Bank alleged plaint that cause of action against account-holder/defendant firstly arose in 1968 and lastly in 1974--Nothing mentioned in plaint to show that after 1974 up to 1980 defendant had at any time admitted liability or paid any money to Bank due to which period of limitation might be extended--Recovery suit filed in 1980 (after six years) without any explanation for delay, held, was patently time-barred--Plaint rejected in circumstances.

Nemo for Petitioner.

Kamaluddin for Respondent.

This is an application under Order V11, rule 11, C.P.C. praying that the plaint be rejected as it is patently barred by time. In the counter-affidavit filed by the plaintiff,. the contents have been denied, and it has been stated that the suit is within time. According to the averment made in the plaint, the defendant has an account with the plaintiff Foreign Exchange Branch. Loan/cash credit over draft facility was first granted on 1-6-1965 against pledge of share and Defence Saving Certificate. The defendant utilised the said facility and confirmed and acknowledged his liability by executing a collateral security i.e. Demand Promissory Note, dated 9-7-1968 for 18,734.83, a delivery letter and letter of lien, and letter regarding pledge of goods were also executed on 9-7-1967. On 23-4-1969, the defendant pledged 100 shares of United Batik Ltd., with the plaintiff. This fact was communicated by the plaintiff on 11-8-1969, and a list of shares was also given and notified by the Bank that it was holding, security in its possession. According to the plaintiff, the defendant acknowledged his liability on 9-8-1969 and on 3-3-1970. On 21-9-1972 the-plaintiff notified the number of shares and certificate held a5 security for me loan advanced to the defendant as desired by the defendant's letter, dated 20-9-1972, On 10--1-1974 the plaintiff disposed of part of security which was credited to the defendant's account on 16-1-1974 There were other securities left with the plaintiffs which have been specified in paragraphs 8 of the plaint. Reference has been made to the defendants letter, dated 1-10-1974, and the reply of the plaintiffs, dated 3-10-1974. The defendants letter, dated 1-10-1974 reads as follows:-

"I shall be grateful if you will supply to me the complete list of securities held by you in my above-mentioned account as on 31-8-1974."

This letter was replied by the plaintiff intimating the defendant about the securities held by it and also the fact that Rs.28,813.891 was due on that date. Thereafter, according to the averments made in the plaint, the plaintiff holds the securities mentioned in para. 8 of the Plaint which are insufficient and that the plaintiff has called upon the defendant from time to time to repay the outstanding amount, but the defendant failed to do so. The plaintiff has claimed Rs.60,399.69 including interest upto 31-3-1980. A copy of the statement of account has been filed which shows that from September, 1974 right upto 31-3-1980 there are only debit entries towards the interest. In paragraph 11 of the plaint, the plaintiff has stated that cause of action first arose on 1-6-1968 thereafter on several dates including the that whole sale. Proceeds of the share were appropriated and on 1-10-1974 when the defendant asked for particulars of securities. There is no averment or facts stated to show that after 1-10-1974 the defendant had at any time admitted the liability or paid any money to the Hank, due to which the period of limitation may be extended. From the averments made in the plaint it is clear that suit filed. in 1980 is patently time-barred. The, plaint is rejected.

H . B . T .

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.