Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Sanna Mallappa, was the plaintiff in a suit for recovery of money filed against the respondent, R.P. Siddeshwarappa, in the Court of Civil Judge and JMFC, Pavagada (OS No.169/2010). The plaintiff claimed that the defendant had borrowed Rs.18,000/- from him on 15.06.2005 for family legal necessities and executed a promissory note agreeing to repay with interest at 2% per month. Despite demands, the defendant failed to repay, leading to the filing of the suit on 20.09.2010 for recovery of Rs.30,960/- (principal plus interest). The defendant contested the suit, inter alia, on the ground that the suit was barred by limitation. The trial court, by judgment and decree dated 18.10.2012, dismissed the suit holding that it was barred by limitation under Article 113 of the Limitation Act, 1963, as the loan was advanced on 15.06.2005 and the suit was filed beyond three years from that date. The plaintiff appealed to the Principal Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Madhugiri (sitting at Pavagada) in R.A.No.105/2012, which was dismissed on 08.11.2013, confirming the trial court's findings. The plaintiff then filed a regular second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 before the High Court of Karnataka. The High Court, after hearing the parties, framed the substantial question of law as to whether the suit was barred by limitation. The court noted that the loan was advanced on 15.06.2005 and the suit was filed on 20.09.2010, which is beyond the three-year period prescribed under Article 113 of the Limitation Act. The court found that the concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts were based on proper appreciation of evidence and did not give rise to any substantial question of law. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the judgments of the courts below.
Headnote
A) Limitation Act - Suit for Recovery of Money - Article 113 of the Limitation Act, 1963 - Bar of Limitation - The plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of Rs.30,960/- based on a loan of Rs.18,000/- allegedly advanced on 15.06.2005. The suit was filed on 20.09.2010, beyond the three-year period from the date the debt became due. The trial court and first appellate court concurrently held the suit barred by limitation. The High Court, in regular second appeal, found no substantial question of law and dismissed the appeal. Held that the concurrent findings of fact on limitation cannot be interfered with under Section 100 CPC (Paras 1-6).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the suit for recovery of money filed by the plaintiff was barred by limitation under Article 113 of the Limitation Act, 1963?
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the regular second appeal, confirming the judgments of the trial court and first appellate court, holding that the suit was barred by limitation and no substantial question of law arose.
Law Points
- Limitation Act
- 1963
- Article 113
- Suit for recovery of money
- Bar of limitation
- Concurrent findings of fact
- Regular second appeal under Section 100 CPC
- No substantial question of law
