This Regular First Appeal calls into question Judgment and decree dated 08.02.2016 passed by the Additional District Judge, Lahore.
2. The facts of the case in brief are that the appellant received a bank draft from Haji Muhammad Amin and Haji Muhammad Ishaq representing the sale consideration of a property sold to them. The bank draft could not be encashed for the reason that the same was cancelled by Haji Muhammad Amin and Haji Muhammad Ishaq. The appellant instituted a suit against the respondent bank under the provisions of Order XXXVII, C.P.C., seeking recovery of Rs.5,400,000/-. The suit was contested by the respondent bank by filing its application for leave to appear and defend wherein the objection of limitation was taken and dismissal of the suit was sought. The Additional District Judge, Lahore through Judgment rendered on 08.02.2016 held that the suit was barred by limitation and accordingly dismissed the same.
3. Learned counsel submits that it was mentioned in paragraph 9 of the plaint that the appellant had filed Writ Petition No. 9572 of 2010 in which the respondent bank undertook to pay the amount whereafter the said petition was withdrawn on 18.05.2015. It was accordingly contended that the undertaking given on 18.05.2015 by the respondent bank for payment of the amount of bank draft was the reference point from which the period of limitation was required to be considered. It is stated that reckoned from the said date, the suit of the appellant was within time.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent bank, on the other hand, supports the Judgment and decree passed by the Additional District Judge, Lahore. It is stated that even if the alleged undertaking of the respondent bank was treated as valid, it was given at a time when the period for filing of the suit on the original cause of action had already lapsed.5. It is an admitted fact that the bank draft was cancelled on 09.09.2002. In the suit filed by the appellant, it was clearly stated in paragraph 10 that the, cause of action accrued for the first time on 09.09.2002 when the bank draft was cancelled. In terms of subsection (1) of section 19, where, before the expiration of the period prescribed for a suit or application in respect of any property or right, an acknowledgment of liability in respect of such property or right has been made in writing, signed by the party against whom such property or right is claimed, a fresh period of limitation shall be computed from the time when the acknowledgment was so signed. It is noted that the appellant did not rely upon any such acknowledgment in writing on the part of the respondent bank in the pleading and also did not append the said acknowledgment with the plaint. Be that as it may, such an acknowledgment in writing which extends the period of limitation must be made within the limitation period from the original cause of action [see Haji Abdul Karim and others v. Messrs Florida Builders (Pvt.) Ltd. PLD 2012 SC 2471. In the present case, the acknowledgment was allegedly made on 22.01.2015 by which time the limitation period on the original cause of action had already come to an end by virtue of Article 64-A of the Limitation Act, 1908. This alleged acknowledgment on the part of the respondent bank, therefore, does not advance the case of the appellant for extending the period for filing the suit on 01.06.2015.
6. In the circumstances, the Additional District Judge rightly dismissed the suit for being barred by limitation.
The appellant had not made out any case for interference in the Judgment and decree impugned in this appeal.
This appeal being devoid of any merit is accordingly dismissed.