' MIAN SAQIB NISAR, J.---The respondents brought a suit for the recovery of Rs.1,33,082, against the appellant claiming, that they had given an amount of Rs.3,00,000 to the appellant as a loan, with the understanding that he shall invest the same in some business and the respondents/ plaintiffs shall also be joined as the partners. The appellant, though admitted of having received the sum of Rs.3,00,000. But stated it to be a "Qarz-e-Hasna"; however, he pleaded in defence, that out of the aforesaid, certain money has been returned to the plaintiffs in cash through cheques; besides a considerable quantity of cloths was also either directly or indirectly given to them, and in this manner, the appellant has paid an amount of Rs.4,18,489.70, which is in excess by Rs.1,18,489.70; the return/repayment whereof was claimed by the appellant as set off.
2. Issues were framed, parties were put to trial and the learned trial Court has come to the conclusion, that only an amount of Rs.1,66,918 has been paid to the respondents and the balance amount has not been paid off, either in cash or kind, therefore, claim of set off was also rejected. On the issue that the suit is time-barred, the learned trial Court has decided this issue in favour of the respondents holding, that the suit from the last payment made by the appellant, when calculated, falls within a period of three years. The suit was thus dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 12-3-1996. Against the above, the appellant preferred an appeal, but without any success. Thus, there is a concurrent finding of facts recorded by the two Courts below that the appellant has only repaid Rs.1,66,918 out of the admitted amount of Rs.3,00,000, which he received from the respondents, either as loan or for the investment purpose in the business as the case may be, and that the payment of any remaining or further amount as alleged by the appellant, has not been established.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant contends, that such concurrent finding is the result of misreading and non-reading of the evidence; the Court of appeal has not decided the issues by giving separate findings, as required under Order XX, rule 5, C.P.C.; the question of limitation has been wrongly decided by the two Courts below.
4. Heard. As far as the plea of misreading and non-reading is concerned, suffice it to say, that the material evidence on the record has been duly considered and appreciated by the two Courts below and no significant error in this behalf has been shown to me. Thus, it is a case regarding the appreciation and appraisal of evidence, rather of any amiss in the reading thereof. Resultantly, even if the findings of the two Courts below are not as desired by the appellant, but such being probable cannot be interfered in second appeal.
5. For the argument that the provisions of Order XX, rule 5, C.P.C. Have not been complied with, I have scanned the judgment of the learned appellate Court, on which this attack was made and find, that without giving a separate caption of each issue, the Court has dealt with all of them.
6. The submission that the Courts have primarily decided Issue No.4 in favour of the respondents and have not given any independent finding on Issues Nos.2 and 3. It may be held that all these issues in fact are inter linked and, therefore, discussion and finding upon one, has settled the others as well. On the last submission that the suit is time barred, I find that the reasons given by the Court of appeal about the issue are absolutely in consonance with the law. Because cause of action in favour of the plaintiffs for the recovery purpose, shall accrue from the time, when the amount becomes due and in this case it shall be from the date of refusal of the defendant. Thus, the time calculated from that date, the suit shall be in time.
' In the light of above, this appeal has no merits and is hereby dismissed.