- (1.) THIS is the plaintiffs' revision application against a decree Judge, Small Cause Court, Jodhpur, dismissing their suit for the recovery of money is the basis of a bond for Rs. 150/4/- executed by Jogla respondent on Fagun Sudi Smt. 2007 corresponding to 11. 3. 51 on the ground that it was barred by limitation.
(2.) UNDER the bond Jogla undertook to pay the money in the next harvesting season. There is unchallenged evidence on record adduced on behalf of the plaintiffs show that the harvesting season as generally understood begins on Migsar Badi 1 and end on Mah Sudi 15. The harvesting season of Smt. 2008 began on 14. 10. 51 and ended 10. 2. 52. The learned Judge was of the opinion that it could not be said that a day was specified for payment in the bond within the meaning of Art. 66 of the Limitation Art and consequently he applied Art. 67 to it, limitation under which is 3 years from the day of executing the bond. UNDER Art. 66 the limitation is 3 years from the day specified the bond for payment of the money. In my opinion Art. 66 is applicable to the case. The day is specified in the bond being the last day of harvesting season Smt 2008 as understood by the people generally namely Mah Sudi 15, Smt. 2008 corresponding to 10th February, 1952. The sum which was instituted on 29 9. 54 was accordingly which limitation. I accordingly allow the revision application against Jogla, set aside the decree of the court below and decree the suit against Jogla for Rs. 150/4/- with interest upto the date of the suit at the contractual rate 18% per annum simple together with pendent lite and future interest at 3% per annum simple with ex parte costs. Jogla did not appear either in the trial court or in this Court to contest the suit or the revision application. The application is not pressed against Jogla's son Nathia and is dismissed against him. Natha has not appeared. .;