' This R:SA. Arises out of a suit for recovery of Rs,5,361 filed by the appellant-Bank on 2-1-1971 in the Court of the Civil Judge, Sargodha. The suit was resisted by the respondent who filed his written statement in the Court. On the pleadings of the parties the trial Court framed the following issues:- --
(1) Whether the suit is barred by limitation?
(2) Whether the defendant has returned to the plaintiff Rs,2,882.21, if so, when and with what effect?
(3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover Rs,5,361 from the defendant?
(4) Relief.
' After recording evidence of the parties and perusing the same, the trial Court decreed the suit vide the judgment and decree dated 6-10-1971. The appeal filed by the respondent was accepted by the learned Additional District Judge vide his judgment and decree dated 8-5-1972.
2. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellate Cow has wrongly held that the suit was barred by time. He explains that the respondent had accepted his liability vide Exh.P.4 (the balance confirmation slip dated 31-12-1968) and the letter Exh.P.5 dated 30-11-1968. Moreover, he deposited a sum of Rs,20 in his account on 3-12-1968 and thus accepted hi liability. Hence, the suit instituted on 3-1-1971 was within time. He furthers submits that the fmdings of the appellate Court that account is not a mutua and current account and thus Article 85 of Limitation Act was not attracted, is not correct.
3. The perusal of the document Exh.P.1 (statement of account) shows that loan on the basis of an over draft was advanced to the respondent who has been repaying it by depositing different amounts. The balance payable by him on 10-4-1965 was Rs,3,402.94. Thereafter, no other transaction took place fors more than 3 years and the Bank did not institute the suit for recovery of the loan and allowed its claim to become time-barred. The alleged deposit of Rs,20 on 3-12-1968 was denied by the respondent. Similarly he disowned his signatures on the balance confirmation slip dated 31-12-1968 (Exh.P.4) and the letter Exh.P5. It was the burden of the appellant-Bank to prove that amount of Rs,20 was deposited by the respondent on 3-12-1968. It does not appeal to reason that after the lapse of more than 3 years since the last transaction which took place in April, 1965 the appellant would have merely deposited a sum of Rs,20 towards his outstanding loan.
Presumably, on finding that its claim had become time-barred the appellant-Bank resorted to the device of getting a small amount of Rs,20 deposited in the respondents' account to create a ground for bringing the claim within the period of limitation. Likewise, after the respondent's denial of his signatures on the documents Exhs.P4 and P.5, the burden heavily lay on the Bank to prove that the signatures were made by the respondent. No reliable evidence was brought on the record in this respect. Therefore, no reliance can be placed on the alleged deposit of Rs,20 on 3-12-1968 or the document Exhs.P.4 and P.5. The appellate Court has rightly held that the suit filed by the appellant-Bank on 2-1-1971 was barred by time.
4. For the foregoing discussion, I find no merit in this appeal which is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.