Brief facts of the case are that respondent filed a suit on 3.1.2000 under Order XXXVIII, Rules 1 and 2 CPC for recovery of Rs, 100,000/-(rupees one hundred thousand only) against the appellant on the basis of a pronote executed on 24.12.1996. Suit was contested by the appellant wherein an objection with regard to limitation was also raised. After grant of leave parties led their respective evidence and the suit was decreed on 5.11.2001. Same is being assailed through the instant appeal.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant has raised solitary argument with regard to the limitation of suit. It was submitted that the pronote was executed on 24.12.1996 and the period for limitation under Article 73 of the Limitation Act, 1908, is three years. The last date when the suit could have been filed fell on 23.12.1999, therefore, the suit is barred by time, Relies on "Sheikh Abdul Samad versus Khan Bahadur Muzaffar" (PLD 1953 Lahore 446) to contend that date of execution of a pronote is to be calculated towards the count of limitation.
3. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondent with refgrence to "Jainaraven Bapu versus Vithora and another" (AIR 1923 Nagpur 556) contends that date of execution of pronote is to be excluded for the calculation of limitation. He has also relied upon Section 12 of the Limitation Act to contend that the day from which period is to be reckoned shall be excluded and if the date of execution of pronote is to be excluded then the last date comes to 24.12.1999 and the said day was the first winter vacation which lasted till 02.01.2000 and the suit was filed on the very next date of re-opening of the Court, therefore, the same was within limitation.
4. I have considered the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties and examined the record.
5. Article 73 of the 1st Schedule of Limitation Act 1908 in column 3 provides time from which period begins to run, as "the date of the bill or note", meaning thereby that the date/day on which the bill or note was executed is the starting point of limitation and cannot be excluded. Same is the view taken by this Court in the case "Sheikh Abdul Samad versus Khan Bahadur Muzaffar" (PLD 1953 Lahore 446). Judgment cited by learned counsel for respondent is with reference to Section 19 of the Limitation Act, which deals with the acknowledgement, therefore, As not relevant for the purpose of decision of this case. In view of the above, since the date of execution of pronote requires to be included in the period of limitation, therefore, the suit filed by the respondent on 03.01.2000 was barred by limitation. Resultantly this appeal is allowed and judgment & decree passed by the learned trial Court is set aside. No order as to costs.