9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
- Suit filed for recovery of loan amount - Defendant's resistance based on various grounds - Framing of issues by trial court - Limitation period for filing the suit Analysis: The judgment by the High Court dealt with a suit filed by the plaintiff for the recovery of a loan amount against the defendant. The defendant resisted the suit on several grounds, including the claim that the suit was not based on the original cause of action, misrepresentation, fraud, and being time-barred. The trial court framed multiple issues based on these contentions, such as whether the defendant borrowed the alleged amount, the admissibility of certain documents, repayment of the loan, maintainability of the claim, limitation period, and others. The High Court focused on the issue of limitation first, noting that the suit was filed beyond the prescribed period. The court highlighted that the acknowledgment of debt by the defendant was signed on a specific date, and as per the Limitation Act, the period of limitation starts running from the date of acknowledgment. The court emphasized that the trial court erred in calculating the limitation period from a later date, contrary to the provisions of Section 18 of the Limitation Act. Based on this ground alone, the High Court concluded that the suit should have been dismissed, rendering other issues irrelevant as the fate of the suit was determined by the question of limitation. Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the judgment and decree of the trial court. The appellant was permitted to withdraw the deposited amount, with entitlement to any interest earned, and no costs were imposed. The decision rested on the correct interpretation of the limitation period, underscoring the importance of adherence to statutory provisions in legal proceedings.
|
