1. ' The facts of the case briefly stated, are that M/s. Habib Bank Ltd. The respondent in this case, filed a suit against the applicant for recovery of Rs,13,150. According to the respondent, the applicant had opened an account in the bank (being No,837 which was later changed as No,1726-2) at the Court Road Branch of the bank at Karachi. It was averred by them that on 1-3-1975 the bank allowed an overdraft facility of Rs,2,000 to the applicant at his request. The loan was to be repaid by the applicant by monthly instalments of Rs,150. Again on 3-11-1975 the respondent-bank allowed further O.D. Facility of Rs,2,000 to the applicant at his request. Thereafter, according to the respondents, the applicant failed to repay the loan despite repeated demands of the respondents and consequently the respondents filed a Civil Suit (No,201 of 1979) for recovery of Rs,i3,150 from the applicant in the Court of the learned Civil Judge and ACM Hyderabad. During the proceedings before the learned trial Court, the applicant did not file any written statement with the result that the case proceeded ex parte against him and an ex parte judgment was passed by the learned Civil Judge and A C M Hyderabad. The applicant then appealed before the learned District Court, Hyderabad but without any success. Before the learned District Court a question of limitation was also taken by the applicant, as according to him, the suit filed by the respondents was barred by limitation.- However, the learned Additional District Judge, who heard the appeal, found from the statement of accounts filed by the respondent-bank that the applicant had made certain deposits in his account with the bank in the month of February, 1978 and this, according to the learned Additional District Judge, gave a fresh starting point to the period of limitation as provided by the section 20 of the Limitation Act. Consequently, he found that the suit which had been filed in 1979 was not time-barred.
2. ' Before this Court, the only contention raised by Mr.Madad Ali Shah, learned counsel for the applicant, is that the learned appellate Court has completely failed to take the proviso to section 20 of the Limitation Act into consideration, and therefore, the section has been Completely misinterpreted. Section 20(1) of the Limitation Act reads as under:- "20(1). Where payment on account of a debt or of interest .On a legacy is made, before the expiration of the prescribed period, by the person liable to, pay the debt or legacy, or by his duly authorised agent, a fresh period of limitation shall be computed from the time when the payment was made: ' Provided that, save in the case of payment of interest made before the 1st day of January, 1928, an acknowledgement of the payment appears in the handwriting of, or in a writing signed by, the person making the payment."
3. A perusal of the proviso attached to section 20(1) clearly indicates that payment made by the debtor towards loan before the expiration of the period of limitation can give a fresh starting point to the period of limitation provided such payment is coupled with acknowledgment in the handwriting of or in a writing signed by the person making the payment. Admittedly, there was no such acknowledgment made by the applicant while depositing the money with the respondent in February, 1978 to indicate that such amount was to be adjusted against the overdraft. Reference in this respect may also be made to the case on U B L v. Begum Jamila Khatoon 1981 CLC 299 where in absence of such acknowledgment in writing a learned Single Judge of this Court came to a conclusion that without such acknowledgment section 20 of the Limitation Act would not be attracted. Reference may also be made to the case of Mabadwith Chandra Padder v. S.D.Ahmed PLD 1969 Dacca 529 wherein similar views had been expressed by the High Court of Dacca.
4. In the present case there is no contest on the point that the suit against the applicant was filed by the respondents on 18-4-1979 for recovery of money loaned to the applicant on 1-3-1975 and 3-11- 1975 respectively. Since admittedly, the case was to be governed by Article 57 of the Limitation Act, which provides for a period of three years to file a suit, which period is to be reckoned from the date when the money was lent, the suit of the respondent, was clearly time-barred. The view taken by the learned subordinate Courts is therefore, not correct.
5. ' As a result, this revision application is allowed and the judgments of the learned trial Court and the learned appellate Court are set aside and the suit filed by the respondents against the applicant is dismissed. The parties are left to bear their own costs.