Full Judgment
V.K. Bali, J.
1. Suit of Mam Raj for recovery of Rs. 30,393/- has since been decreed by the learned trial Court vide judgment and decree dated January 30, 1989 which has since been confirmed by the Appellate Court in an appeal filed by Pirthi Singh. Hence present appeal.
2. There is no need to go into the detailed facts of the case in the context of submissions that have been made by learned counsel for the appellant challenging the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court, which, as mentioned above, has since been confirmed by the Appellate Court.
3. It has been urged in support of this appeal that the suit for recovery was barred by limitation. To appreciate the argument aforesaid, all that requires to be mentioned is that agreement, on the basis of which suit was filed is dated January 30, 1975. The amount of money, mentioned in the agreement aforesaid, was acknowledged by the defendant-appellant on January 30, 1978 and the suit was filed on February 24, 1981. It is urged by Bhoop Singh, the learned counsel that three years had already expired before acknowledgement, even though by a day, and this acknowledgement would not come to the rescue of the plaintiff as the same was made beyond the period of limitation. It requires to be mentioned that no such plea was ever raised before the Courts below. That apart, what transpires from the records of the case is that out of the total amount, mentioned in the agreement, an amount of Rs. 6423/- had been paid by defendant from time to time. This payment on different occasions would amount to acknowledgement of debt from time and time as and when amount might have been paid. It is, of course, not clear as to on what dates different amounts, totalling Rs. 6423/- were paid, but, surely, if the point with regard to limitation was taken, it would have been well within the right of plaintiff to plead acknowledgement based upon payments made on various occasions, totalling an amount of Rs. 6423/-. In view of the fact that a plausible defence was available to the plaintiff if the point of limitation was raised, it shall not be equitable at this stage to permit the appellant to raise the point of limitation.
4. The next and last contention raised on behalf of the appellant is that vide agreement, Ex.P1, amount was payable to a Society and that being so, plaintiff could not file a suit for recovery against the defendant-appellant. This contention has also to be repelled. A reading of the agreement would show that the same was among three persons, namely, Mam Raj, plaintiff, Pirthi Singh, defendant and one Harjit Singh. These three had mutually agreed to pay the amount mentioned in the agreement. Ex.P1 to the Society which, it appears, had gone in arbitration proceedings against the plaintiff. The burden of the plaint was that the entire amount had been paid on behalf of the plaintiff and, therefore, the amount mentioned to be payable by defendant could be recovered by him (plaintiff). In view of the terms of agreement as also pleadings, referred to above, the contention raised by learned counsel for the appellant to the effect aforesaid, can not possible by accepted. If it was proved, and so it was, that plaintiff had paid the entire amount, i.e. payable by the defendant, he could well, on the strength of Ex.P1, recover the amount by filing suit.
5. Finding no merit in this appeal, I dismiss the same, leaving, however, the partiesto bear their own costs.