' MIAN HAMID FAROOQ, J.---Syed Muhammad Rafique Shah, appellant/plaintiff, through the filing of the present appeal, has called in question judgment and decree dated 24-7-1995, whereby the learned Civil Judge dismissed the appellant's suit for recovery of Rs,4,05,990.
2. Facts leading to the filing of the present appeal are that the appellant filed a suit for recovery of Rs,405,990, against the respondent/defendant, his ex-son-in-law, before the learned Civil Judge alleging therein that the respondent was involved in certain criminal cases and the appellant gave him certain amounts, total amounting to Rs,4,05,990, during the period ranging from 13-11-1984 to 5-5-1987. After the release of the respondent when the appellant demanded the said amount from the respondent, he acknowledged his liability to pay the said amount through the execution of acknowledgement bond dated 29-2-1988 (Exh.P.1). It has been narrated in the plaint that when the said amount was not paid by the respondent, the appellant served legal notices dated 23-10-1991, 27-10-1991 and 4-11-1991 upon the respondent, thereby demanding the payment of said amount, but nonpayment of the said amount necessitated the filing of the suit. The respondent contested the suit by filing the written statement thereby taking certain legal objections, i,e, the suit is barred by time; the same is not maintainable and that it has been filed with mala fide intentions. The respondent also denied having executed any acknowledgement bond and asserted that the same is forged and fictitious.
3. Out of the divergent pleadings of the parties the learned trial Court framed the following issues:- -
(1) Whether this suit has been filed with a mala fide intention to blackmail the defendant? OPD.
(2) Whether the suit is false and baseless? OPD.
(3) Whether this suit is Within time? OPP.
(4) Whether plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount from the defendant? OPP.
(5) Relief."
' In order to prove the aforesaid issues, the appellant produced four witnesses and himself appeared as P.W.5, while the respondent produced two witnesses and himself appeared as D.W.3.
However, the learned trial Court after rendering his findings mainly on Issues Nos.3 and 4 and finding that the suit is barred by time and that the appellant is not entitled for the recovery of the suit amount proceeded to dismiss the suit vide judgment and decree dated 24-7-1995, hence the present appeal.
4. This was a represented case, but as during the pendency of the appeal, the learned counsel of the respondent died, therefore, notices were issued to the respondent. Despite the service of the respondent none has entered appearance on his behalf to defend this appeal, hence he is proceeded ex parte.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the execution of acknowledgement bond was duly proved through the production of marginal witnesses and thus the appellant was entitled for the recovery of the suit amount but the learned Civil Judge has erred in law, while dismissing the suit. He has further contended that the impugned judgment was rendered by the learned Civil Judge in complete oblivion of the facts of the case and law on the subject.
6. To our mind, the most crucial issue is Issue No,3, as to whether the suit is within time. The principal stay of the case of the appellant is the alleged acknowledgement bond dated 29-2-1988 (Exh.P.1), which shows that the respondent has allegedly acknowledged the receipt of a sum of Rs,4,05,990, although no details of the afore-noted amount have been given in the said document.
According to the appellant himself, as discernible from the plaint, he has given these amounts to the respondent on various occasions during the period ranging from 13-11-1984 to 5-5-1987. Under section 19 of the Limitation Act, where before the expiration of the period, prescribed for a suit, if any party acknowledges his liability through writing and signed by him, then a fresh period of limitation shall be computed from the time, when the acknowledgement was signed. It flows from the perusal of section 19 of the Limitation Act that the acknowledgment must be made before the expiration of the original period of limitation. There is no cavil to the proposition that a suit for recovery of money payable for money lent can be filed within a period of three years from the date, loan is made. Although execution of Exh.P.1 has been denied by the respondent and was labelled as fictitious and forged, yet even if Exh.P.1 is taken to be a valid document, even then the payments allegedly received beyond the period of 3 years computed from 29-2-1988, are not recoverable on the strength of Exh.P.1 as they stood barred by time, as they have allegedly been acknowledged after the expiration of the period prescribed for filing the suit for recovery under Article 57 of the Limitation Act. We have examined the record and find that while deciding Issue No,3, the learned Civil Judge has rightly calculated the three amounts, total amounting to Rs,1,75,400 which were barred by limitation, and are not recoverable even under the acknowledgement bond dated 29-2- 1988.
7. Even according to the own-showings of the appellant, the acknowledgement bond was executed on 29-2-1988 and instant suit, out of which the present appeal has arisen, was filed on 19- 12-1991, meaning thereby, that the same was filed after three years and 10 months of the alleged acknowledgement of debt. We would again refer to section 19 of Limitation Act, which provides that if an acknowledgement of liability is made in writing and signed by the parties, then a fresh period of limitation for filing suit shall be computed from the time, when the acknowledgement was signed. In this case the acknowledgement was allegedly signed and made on 29-2-1988, thus, even if the acknowledgement bond dated 29-2-1988 is taken to be a valid, legal and duly executed document, at the best, the appellant would be entitled for a fresh period of limitation of three years, as per Article 57 of the Limitation Act, from the date when the acknowledgement was signed i,e, 29- 2-1988. According to Article 57 of the Limitation Act, the limitation for filing the suit for money payable for money lent is three years. And this period of three years is to be computed from the Lime, when the loan is made. If section 19 of the Limitation Act is read with Article 57 of the Limitation Act, the only irresistible . Conclusion, which can be arrived in this case is that in case the appellant was able to prove the execution of Exh.P.1, in that case, he was entitled to file a suit, within a period of three years, taking from the date of execution of the alleged acknowledgement deed i,e, 29-2-1988 uptil 28-2-1991. As the suit was filed beyond the period of three years even from 29-2- 1988, thus the same was barred by time and the learned Civil Judge has rightly decided the issue of limitation in favor of the respondent.
8. Now coming to Issue No,4, we have examined the impugned judgment and find that the learned Civil Judge, after having discussed the total evidence on record and undertaking indepth study of the oral and documentary evidence on record, had found that the appellant could not prove the execution of the acknowledgement deed, Exh.P.1. The marginal witnesses of the said document admittedly, are the brother-in-law and the real son of the appellant. The learned Civil Judge has rightly held that according to the acknowledgement deed, a sum of Rs,4,05,990 was, statedly received in cash on different occasions, whereas according to the evidence on record and the own-showings of the appellant, the said amount was given to the respondent through cheques.
The findings of the learned Civil Judge on Issue No,4, that the execution of acknowledgement deed Exh.P.1 is not proved, are in consonance with the evidence available on record and, thus the appellant cannot take any exception to those findings.
9. In the light of the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the appellant, we have examined the impugned judgment, entire evidence, the available record and find that the learned Civil Judge has rendered a well-reasoned and speaking judgment, which is legal, unexceptionable and we have no reason to disagree with the findings rendered by the learned Civil Judge, thus we maintain the findings of the learned Civil Judge on all the issues.
10. Upshot of the above discussion is that the present appeal is devoid of any merits, thus the same is dismissed with no order as to costs.