1 2025:CGHC:4223 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CR No. 47 of 2024 1 - Sunder Lal Leharey S/o D.R. Leharey Aged About 74 Years R/o Khamtarai, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Ganpat Leharey S/o Late Ramdas Leharey Aged About 61 Years R/o Gurunanak Ward, Bhatapara, Teh. And Distt. Balodabazaar Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Shri Raja Sharma, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Shri Ujjwal Choubey appears on behalf of Shri Ankur Agrawal, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Deepak Kumar Tiwari, J Order On Board 23/01/2025 : 1. This Revision has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 25.11.2023 passed by the 2nd Additional District Judge, Raipur in Civil Appeal No.1-B/2021 affirming the judgment and decree dated 18th March, 2020 passed by the 3rd Civil Judge Class-II, Raipur in Civil Suit No.5-B/2013 whereby the misc. suit preferred by the petitioner/plaintiff was dismissed. KRISHNA KUMAR BARVE Digitally signed by KRISHNA KUMAR BARVE Date: 2025.01.23 17:11:23 +0530 2 2. Facts of the case are that the petitioner/plaintiff has filed a civil suit for recovery of money, which was advanced to the respondent by way of loan of Rs.20,000/- with interest @ 10% per month, and a condition has been stipulated that the said amount would have to be returned within a period of 5 months, and the respondent has also executed an agreement (Ex.-P/1) by mortgaging the house. The trial Court has earlier dismissed the civil suit only on the ground of limitation by applying the provisions of Article 47 of the Schedule of Limitation Act, against which the petitioner has preferred FA No.4-B/2018, which was allowed by a judgment dated 5th April, 2019 by observing that as the payment of money has been secured by way of mortgage (Ex.-P/1), therefore, the matter was remitted back to consider as to the applicability of the provisions and to decide all the issues. Thereafter the trial Court has passed the impugned judgment and decree, which was confirmed by the appellate Court. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that when the matter was remanded back in FA No.4-B/2018, the trial Court has travelled beyond the directions of the remand order. Both the Courts below have committed a jurisdictional error while dismissing the suit by holding that the suit is time barred, though the plaintiff has proved his case otherwise. He would further submit that in the instant matter, Article 62 of the Schedule of Limitation Act squarely applies, however, the same has not been examined as per the remand order passed by the first Appellate Court. 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner at length and perused the documents annexed with the Revision carefully. 3 5. In the case at hand, learned Appellate Court has assigned the reason that the subject property was not existing in the name of the appellant at the time of advancing loan. When the said fact is confronted with learned counsel for the petitioner, he does not dispute the same. And as such, the first Appellate Court has rightly observed that no such property was existing at the time of execution of the agreement (Ex.- P/1). Hence, provision of Article 62 of the Schedule of Limitation Act does not attract and for recovery of the loan amount, the limitation period prescribed under Article 47 of the Schedule of Limitation Act is 3 years. 6. In the circumstances, this Court does not find any illegality, infirmity or perversity in the impugned order and the findings recorded by the Courts below are on the basis of evidence available on record. Therefore, no interference is warranted invoking revisional jurisdiction of this Court. 7. In the result, the Civil Revision is dismissed. Sd/- (Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge Barve