- (1.) The instant civil regular first appeal under Section 96, CPC is directed against the judgment and decree dated 17-12-1982 passed by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur in Civil Original Suit No. 53/80 whereby, the suit for recovery of Rs. 54,642.89/- was dismissed. However, the cost was made easy.
(2.) Briefly stated, the relevant facts are that the plaintiff-appellant filed a civil suit against the defendants with the averments that on the request of defendant No. 1 Madan Gopal, who deals in the business in the name of Goyal Crusher, the plaintiff- bank agreed to advance loan for a sum of Rs. 28,000/- to defendant No. 1 for the purchase of machinery. He was advanced medium term loan of Rs. 13,657/- on 13-6- 1970 and Rs. 14300/- on 26-6-1970. Defendant No. 1 executed a hypothecation agreement on 13-6-1970 in favour of the plaintiff-appellant agreeing to pay the loan amount in the quarterly instalments. Defendant No. 2 Janki Nath furnished guarantee for the aforesaid loan and stood as a Guarantor. He also executed a surety bond on 13-6-1970 in favour of the plaintiff-bank, the appellant. Madan Gopal, defendant No. 2 made another application to the plaintiff bank after some time for cash credit facility to the extent of Rs. 10,000 whereupon, the plaintiff-appellant agreed to do so. Madan Gopal Defendant No. 1 executed a promissory note in favour of defendant No. 2 and defendant No. 2 endorsed the same in favour of the plaintiff-appellant. They also executed D.P. Note, letter of Waiver, Agreement of Hypothecation and Surety Bond dated 30- 7-1970. Defendant No. 1 repaid Rs. 26,255 paise 47 against the aforesaid medium term loan. A sum of Rs. 35,801 paise 53 came to be outstanding including the principal amount and the interest against the defendants. On account of the medium term loan, Rs. 18,841 palsa 36 remained outstanding on account of cash credit hypothecation. It was averred that the defendants made acknowledgments from time to time of the aforesaid amount of loan due against them but they did not make payments as demanded by the plaintiff-appellant. The defendants denied having executed any of the aforesaid documents and having taken any loan from the bank.
(3.) The trial Court framed as many as 13 issues on the basis of the pleadings of the parties and after affording opportunity of leading evidence to both the parties and after hearing both the sides, held that the suit was barred by limitation. Accordingly, the suit was dismissed, as indicated above.;