9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (5) TMI 1766X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... butted and unchallenged since the respondent Nos. 1 3 were ex-parte before the learned Trial Court. All these deposits were made by the appellant in the respective accounts of the respondent Nos. 1 3 in the month of May, 2010. The suit was filed by the appellant on 23.8.2014. The appellant has not placed on record any written agreement executed between the parties. Article 19 of the Act applies to a suit for recovery of money payable on account of money lent for which the period of limitation is three years and time from which the period of limitation begins is the date when the money is lent. Under Article 22 of the Act, for money deposited under an agreement that it shall be payable on demand, including money of a customer in the h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... II, Central, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi, by which the suit of the appellant for recovery of ₹ 10,19,200/- was dismissed. The respondent No. 2 is the sister of the wife of the appellant/plaintiff and respondent No. 1 is the husband of the respondent No. 2. Respondent No. 3 is the foster sister of the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. It is alleged that on persuasion of respondent Nos. 1 and 2, the appellant deposited a sum of 1,49,000/- on various dates in the bank account No. 10001952591, State Bank of India, Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi, of respondent No. 1/defendant No. 1. The details of the same are as under: 14.5.2010 -- ₹ 24,000/- 17.5.2010 -- ₹ 25,000/- 18.5.2010 -- ₹ 25,000/- 19.5.2010 -- ₹ 25,000/- 20.5. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 99,200/- totalling to ₹ 10,19,200/-. 7. Despite service of summons by way of publication in the newspaper Dainik Tribune the respondents did not appear before the Trial Court and they were proceeded ex parte on 10th December, 2014. 8. In support of his case, the appellant had examined himself as a sole witness as PW-1. He placed on record 12 original pay in slips Ex. PW-1/1 to Ex. PW1/12 of making deposits in the bank accounts of Defendant Nos. 1 and 2. He also filed six original pay in slips Ex. PW-1/13 to Ex. PW-1/18 with respect to the amount which he had deposited in the account of respondent No. 3. He also filed one original postal receipt Ex. PW-1/19 dated 22.2.2013 addressed to the respondent No. 1. The copy of the report ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... espondent No. 1, ₹ 1,49,000/- in the bank account of respondent No. 1 and ₹ 1,50,000/- in the bank account of respondent No. 3 totalling to ₹ 5,20,000/- went unrebutted and unchallenged since the respondent Nos. 1 3 were ex-parte before the learned Trial Court. All these deposits were made by the appellant in the respective accounts of the respondent Nos. 1 3 in the month of May, 2010. The suit was filed by the appellant on 23.8.2014. The appellant has not placed on record any written agreement executed between the parties. He also not examined any other witness that the respondents had agreed to return the amount with interest @24% per annum. Since learned Counsel for the appellant has relied upon Article 22 of the Ac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under Article 22 of the Act. 16. It is noticed that the respondent No. 2 has unnecessarily been made a party as admittedly the appellant has not deposited any amount in her account. Since the money was deposited on various dates in accounts of respondent Nos. 1 3 in the month of May, 2010 and the suit having been filed on 23.8.2014 for which Article 19 providing three years limitation shall be applicable and the limitation is to run from the dates of deposit. Therefore, the appellant fails to show that the suit was filed within the period of limitation and the Trial Court has arrived at a right conclusion that the suit was barred by limitation. I find no merit in the appeal. The same is dismissed with cost of ₹ 25,000/- payable t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
