ADIVELU Vs. NARAYANACHARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A short but an important question for consideration is; "whether an endorsement on pronote, showing part payment and extending the period of limitation, could be construed as "promise" under Section 25 (3) of the Contract Act?"

(2.) FACTS in brief, which gave raise to the question, are; Respondent narayanachari, who was the plaintiff in O. S. No. 201/ 00 before the court of Civil Judge (Sr. Dn) and JMFC at Bhadravathi, brought suit against one Adivelu (now deceased) stating that Adivelu borrowed a sum of Rs. 26,000/- on 20. 11. 91 and also Rs. 25,000/- on 15. 12. 91 under two different pronotes agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of Rs. 18% p. a. and in connection with first pronote, adivelu made part payments of Rs. 3,500/- and Rs. 3,000 on 8. 11. 94 and 18. 11. 97 respectively and, with regard to second pronote dated 15. 12. 91, he made part payment of Rs. 3,500/- on 8. 11. 94 and Rs. 4,000/- on 28. 11. 97 but not thereafter. As such, calculating the amount due under the said two pronotes, the plaintiff claimed Rs. 1,47,978/- from Adivelu showing that cause of action arose on 20. 11. 91, 15. 12. 91, 8,11. 94, 18. 11. 97 and 28. 11. 97. On his appearance before the trial Court, Adivelu filed I. A. 5 under Order 7 rule 11 of the CPC requesting to reject the plaint as barred by time. After hearing, the trial Court dismissed that I. A. by the impugned order. Hence, the L. Rs of the deceased defendant Adivelu are before this Court as petitioners.

(3.) IT was vehemently contended for them that even if the dates of alleged payments stated by the plaintiff are considered, the suit claim was barred by time on the date of suit and as such the endorsements made on the two pronotes on 18. 11. 97 and 28. 11. 97 respectively did not extend the period of limitation of time barred claims. On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the plaintiff supported the impugned order. Perused the records carefully.