RSA-3924-2019 [202] Amarjit Sin Nirmal Sin Coram : Present: PANKAJ J [1] judgment a filed by the 18% per an Court of the [2] original pos the respond [3] that the def agreement Exhibit P- 2019 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF AT CHANDIGA RSA-3924 Date of De rjit Singh Versus al Singh HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PA Mr. Harpreet Arora, Advocate Mr. Dhruv Gupta, Advocate fo **** KAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL) Defendant is in appeal befo ment and decree passed by the Lowe by the plaintiff seeking recovery of per annum has been decreed, revers t of the First Instance. For the convenience, parties h nal position as before the Trial Court i espondent as the plaintiff. Plaintiff filed a suit seeking re he defendant availed financial assistan ment (Exhibit P-2) dated 19.02.2008 -2. Defence of the defendant was T OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA DIGARH 3924-2019 (O&M) of Decision : 19.01.2026 …Appellant ….Respondent PANKAJ JAIN vocate for the appellant. for the respondent. l before this Court, aggrieved of th Lower Appellate Court, whereby su ry of ₹2,50,000/- along with interest @ reversing the findings recorded by th rties hereinafter are referred to by the ourt i.e. appellant as the defendant an king recovery of ₹2,50,000/-, claimin ssistance from him executing a writte 2.2008 in his favour. Plaintiff prove t was struck off. 1 of the eby suit terest @ by the by their ant and laiming written proved RAJNEESH SHARMA 2026.02.04 16:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-3924-2019 [4] plaintiff, h 2019 (O&M) Court of the First Instance tiff, holding the same to be barred by “19. It is a legally recognized entering into an agreement cont limitation as prescribed under the provisions under which any extens the limitation period is available, the Limitation Act, 1963. In the a shall be no relief available to th prevent the continuous running of t 20. Reverting back to the facts o was advanced in the year 2008. Alt that loan shall be repayable in 7 any agreement by which parties s provided under the Limitation Act, lawful. This being the position, th present suit expired in year 2011. 21. Although, it was specifical the interest of 18% annually, no was ever made by the defendant b plaintiff places reliance upon and c under the provisions of Section 19 to make a reference to the provisio which reads as below: “19. Effect of payment o legacy. – Where payment o legacy is made before the ex person liable to pay the authorized in this behalf, computed from the time whe Provided that, save before the 1st day of Janu payment appears in the han the person making the paym Explanation. – For t (a) where mortgag mortgagee, the receipt of th tance dismissed the suit filed by th ed by limitation, observing as under: ized principle that the parties cannot contract out of or extend the period the provisions of Limitation Act, 1963. T xtension or relaxation from the running ble, have been specifically provided und he absence of any of these grounds, the o the plaintiff/applicant and nothing sh of the limitation period. cts of the case at hand, the loan transacti . Although it has been agreed by the part n 7-8 years, however, as discussed earli ies seek to extend the limitation period Act, 1963, shall be void as the same is n n, the limitation period for instituting t 11. fically agreed that the defendant shall p no such interest or payment of instalme ant before the year 2015. Purportedly, t d claims extension of the limitation peri n 19. For this purpose, it becomes appos visions of Section 19 of the Limitation A nt on account of debt or of interest nt on account of a debt or of interest on he expiration of the prescribed period by t the debt or legacy or by his agent du alf, a fresh period of limitation shall when the payment was made: ave in the case of payment of interest ma anuary, 1928, an acknowledgement of t handwriting of, or in a writing signed b ayment. or the purpose of this section, – tgaged land is in the possession of t of the rent or produce of such land shall 2 by the nder:- not by iod of 3. The ning of under , there g shall saction parties arlier, iod as is not ing the all pay alment ly, the period pposite on Act, est on st on a by the t duly all be t made of the ed by, of the hall be RAJNEESH SHARMA 2026.02.04 16:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-3924-2019 [5] reversed th 2019 (O&M) deemed to be a payment; (b) “debt” does not inc order of a Court. To attract the opera essential: first, payment mu of limitation and secondly, of writing either in the han him. It is the payment which but the payment has got to written or signed acknowle and oral testimony is exclud the required form as obse Prasad A.I.R. 1951 S.C.477 22. In the facts of the present ca the interest has been paid in the ye much after the expiry of the limitati the Schedule, the limitation period the loan was advanced. Therefore, year 2011 itself. The payment mad period and unaccompanied by any fails to fulfill the criteria set out in 23. Hence, this Court is of the barred under the provisions of Li Section 3, there is an embargo on relief in a suit if it is found to be b On appeal preferred by the p sed the findings recorded by the Trial “11. xxxx The advancement the loan o been held by the learned trial C Ex.P2, it emerges that the responde Rs.2,50,000/- within a period of 7 19.02.2008 and, therefore, the 18.02.2016. The period of limita t include money payable under a decree perations of this section, two conditions a t must be made within the prescribed peri dly, it must be acknowledged by some fo handwriting of payer himself or signed hich really extends the period of limitatio ot to be proved in a particular way and owledgement is the only proof of payme xcluded unless there is acknowledgement observed in Sant Lal Mahton vs. Kam .477.” nt case, the payment of Rs.40,000/- towar he year 2015. This payment has been ma itation period, as according to Article 19 iod had begun to run in the year 2008 wh ore, the limitation period had run out in t made much after the lapse of the limitati any written document or acknowledgme t in Section 19 of the Limitation Act. f the confirm view that the present suit f Limitation Act and by the application o on the Court to entertain and grant t e barred by limitation.” the plaintiff, Lower Appellate Cou Trial Court, observing as under:- xxxx xxxx an of Rs.2,50,000/- was duly proved as h al Court also. If we peruse the docume ondent had undertaken to return the sum f 7-8 years. The document was executed he period of 08 years would lapse mitation of three years would start fro 3 ree or ns are period e form ned by itation: and a ayment ent in Kamla owards made e 19 of 8 when t in the itation dgment suit is tion of ant the e Court as has cument sum of ted on se on t from RAJNEESH SHARMA 2026.02.04 16:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-3924-2019 [6] recorded by recorded by limitation h [7] repayable i compound thus submi rightly held prescribed to Limitati Lower App Instance be [8] that written limitation t period pres 2019 (O&M) 18.02.2016 and not from the date o of the Limitation Act, 1963 wil repayment. If the view taken by the then in a case, where a loan woul for a period of 05 years and a suit would be that the suit is premature 05 years. The view taken by the l logic and common sense and the repayment would be useless if the s years from the date of payment. Th is hypertechnical and is, therefore, Learned counsel for the app ded by the Lower Appellate Court, ass ded by the Trial Court have been reve ation has been decreed. Mr. Arora, would contend t able in 7-8 years, however, defenda ound interest. As per plaintiff, defen submits that the present suit having b ly held to be barred by limitation h ribed period as contemplated under imitation Act, 1963. He submits th er Appellate Court be reversed and th nce be restored. Per contra, learned counsel f written contract dated 19.02.2008 (An ation to file suit for recovery would th d prescribed for repayment. As per c ate of advancement of the loan as Article will apply, where no date is fixed f the learned trial Court was to be accepte ould be advanced or money would be le suit is filed after three years, the objecti ture since the money was to be repaid af the learned trial Court does not appeal the whole purpose for fixing a time f he suit was to be filed within a period of t. The view taken by the learned trial Cou ore, not acceptable.” e appellant has assailed the finding urt, asserting that well reasoned finding en reversed. A suit expressly barred b tend that even though the loan wa efendant was put to condition to pa efendant even evaded payment. H ving been instituted on 16.01.2018 wa tion having not been filed within th nder Article 19 of Schedule-I appende mits that the findings recorded by th that recorded by the Court of Fir nsel for the respondent would conten 8 (Annexure P-2) is not disputed. Th ould thus commence only after the tim r contract, defendant was given 7 4 icle 19 ed for cepted, be lent jection id after peal to me for d of 03 l Court findings findings arred by an was pay ent. He 018 was thin the ppended by the of First contend ed. The the time iven 7-8 RAJNEESH SHARMA 2026.02.04 16:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-3924-2019 years to rep 7 years, the instituted submits th recorded by [9] through rec [10] that Exhibi 19.02.2008 agreeing to question is held by the time period [11] period agre [12] commence period for r the limitati 1963 Act. 2019 (O&M) to repay the loan. Even if the time pe rs, the same would have lapsed on 1 uted on 16.01.2018 i.e. within 03 y its that the Lower Appellate Cour ded by the Court of First Instance. I have heard counsel for the gh records of the case. Learned counsel for the appell Exhibit P-2, the written document, st .2008. Defendant-appellant availed ing to pay repayment the loan wit tion is ‘whether the limitation woul y the Trial Court or shall commence riod granted under written agreeme Article 19 of 1963 Act reads as Description of suit Pe lim 19. For money payable for money lent. Th The provisions govern limitatio d agreed for repayment of the money Lower Appellate Court right ence not from the date of agreeme d for repayment of loan lapsed i.e. wh imitation would be governed by Artic Act. If the time period prescribed time period for repayment is taken to b on 18.02.2015. The present suit wa n 03 years therefrom. He according Court rightly reversed the finding or the parties and have carefully gon appellant is not in a position to dispu ent, stands proved. The same is date availed loan facility under the sam n within a period of 7-8 years. Th ould commence from 19.02.2008 ence from the date after expiry of th ement to repay the loan? eads as under:- Period of limitation Time from which peri begins to run Three years When the loan is made. imitation of a suit where there is no tim oney lent. t rightly held that the limitation sha reement but from the date the agree when the right to sue accrued. Thu y Article 113 and not Article 19 of th ribed for repayment is taken to be 0 5 en to be suit was dingly findings lly gone dispute is dated e same, The 08 as of the period made. no time on shall agreed Thus 9 of the o be 07 RAJNEESH SHARMA 2026.02.04 16:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-3924-2019 years, the s within 03 instituted o [13] in holding by the Tria every loan to filing of [14] appeal, the [15] disposed of 19.01.2026 ‘R. Sharma' 2019 (O&M) , the same lapsed on 18.02.2015. Thu in 03 years from 18.02.2015 i.e. upt uted on 16.01.2018. In view thereof, this Court find lding the suit to be barred by limitati e Trial Court is accepted, the same w loan transaction irrespective of the ing of suit within a period of 03 years In view of the above, this Co al, the same is ordered to be dismisse All pending miscellaneous ed off. .2026 Whether speaking/ reasoned Whether reportable Thus the suit was required to be file .e. upto 17.02.2018. Present suit wa finds that the Trial Court erred in la imitation. In case, the view formulate ame would lead to a situation where f the schedule for repayment shall l years from the date money is lent. Court finds no merit in the prese smissed. neous application(s), if any, stand (PANKAJ JAIN) JUDGE : Yes/No : Yes/No 6 be filed uit was d in law mulated wherein lead present stands RAJNEESH SHARMA 2026.02.04 16:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document