GURU NANAK RICE MILLS ARNIA Vs. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is defendants appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The appeal is against the judgment and decree dated 28-11-1991 passed by the District Judge (Bank cases) Jammu whereby suit for recovery of Rs. 2,26,922.97 has been decreed. The plaintiff sought recovery of the amount which was advanced to M/s. Guru Nanak Rice Mill, Arnia, a partnership firm of which appellants and respondents No.2 to 8 were partners. As the amount of loan was not paid the Punjab National Bank respondent herein filed the suit which has been decreed.

(2.) While the appellants pleaded limitation as bar to the suit the respondents No.2 to 8 denied their liability on the ground that partnership stood dissolved with effect from 21-8-1980 and therefore, they were not liable.On the pleadings of the parties the following issues were framed :- "1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover an amount of Rs. 2,26,922.97 with interest @ 12% p.a. with quarterly rests till realisation from all the defendants? OPP2. Whether the documents referred to in para No.10 have been duly executed by the defendants? OPP3. Relief."

(3.) The learned trial Court found both the issues in favour of the plaintiff-bank and decreed the suit. The contention of Mr. Raghu Mehta, learned counsel for the appellants are two fold (i) that the claim is barred by limitation because the acknowledgment of debt by executing the balance confirmation letters after the debt had become barred by time does not save the limitation, and (ii) that the interest could not be charged on the interest compounded from time to time and included in the principal. Mr. Chopra argued that defendants had acknowledged the liability to pay the amount claimed in the suit well within the period of limitation and, therefore, the suit was rightly decreed. His further submission is that the interest had been rightly calculated in terms of the agreement and the same is permissible.