M. M. MIRDHE, J. ( 1 ) THIS civil revision petition is filed by the petitioner, who was the plaintiff in the trial court under section 18 of the Karnataka Small Causes Courts Act, 1964, against the order, dated 4-4-1990 passed by the learned xi additional small causes judge, Bangalore in s. c. no. 5662 of 1988 dismissing the suit of the petitioner as time-barred. ( 2 ) I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel forthe respondents fully and perused the records of the case. ( 3 ) THE petitioner filed the suit against the respondents for the return of the depositamount of Rs. 5,000/- along with interest accrued thereon. In response to the publication of the respondents inviting deposits from the public, the petitioner through her mother Smt. B. p. geethalakshmi, deposited a sum of Rs. 5,000/- under deposit receipt no. F. d. r. 073, dated 3-3-1982 initially for three years carrying interest at the rate of 18% f. a. and thereafter the defendants agreed to hold the same as deposit and to pay the agreed interest and that the plaintiff has received the interest on the said deposit on 4-3-1985. Thereafter the petitioner requested to pay the balance but the respondents did not pay the balance and, therefore, she issued the notice to the respondents and as the respondents failed to comply with the notice, she filed the suit. The first respondent remained ex parte in the trial court the second and third respondents entered appearance through their advocates and filed their written statements and they contended that the suit was liable to be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary parties and the suit was bared by time, etc. ( 4 ) ON the basis of the pleadings, the trial court framed the following issues1. Does plaintiff prove having deposited a sum of Rs. 5,000/- with vishnu auto finances on 3-3-1982, carrying interest at the rate of 18% p,a. ? 2. Docs she further prove defendants agreed to hold the said sum as deposit and to pay agreed interest even after the three years of the deposits? 3. Whether the suit is filed within limitation period? 4. What decree or order? ( 5 ) ISSUE no. 1 has been decided in favour of the petitioner holding that she hasproved that she deposited a sum of Rs. 3. Whether the suit is filed within limitation period? 4. What decree or order? ( 5 ) ISSUE no. 1 has been decided in favour of the petitioner holding that she hasproved that she deposited a sum of Rs. 5,000/-with vishnu auto finances carrying interest at the rate of 18% p. a. this is a finding of fact recorded by the trial court in favour of the petitioner and the respondents have not preferred any appeal or cross-objections against this finding. So it will have to be taken as proved that the petitioner has deposited a sum of Rs. 5,000/- with vishnu auto finances on 3-3-1982 carrying interest at the rate of 18% p. a. this is a conclusive finding on fact. The suit of the plaintiff could not have been dismissed on the ground that it is time barred. The learned trial judge relied on the decisions reported in AIR 1984 SC 267 and AIR 1968 SC 437, in support of his conclusion that the suit of the plaintiff is barred by limitation. A perusal of the said volumes discloses that there is no such ruling given by the Supreme Court regarding the proposition of law, in the light of which it can be held that the suit of the plaintiff was barred by time. The learned trial judge has blindly quoted the said authorities without caring to go through the same and find out whether such a ruling exists in those volumes or not the tendency of the trial judge to simply quote both the volumes without going through them to find out whether such a ruling exists in those volumes or not and if exists whether it applies to the facts of the case, is to be deprecated. ( 6 ) LEARNED counsel for the respondents, relied on the decision in kashinathsankarappa wani v new akot cotton ginning and pressing co. ( 6 ) LEARNED counsel for the respondents, relied on the decision in kashinathsankarappa wani v new akot cotton ginning and pressing co. Ltd. , AIR 1958 SC 437 wherein the Supreme Court has held that when a receipt evidences a deposit of certain amount for a period of 12 months containing a term that interest thereon would cease on that day, it was sufficient to establish that the amount due at the foot of the deposit receipt became due and payable on the due date mentioned therein and there was no question of the amount being payable at any time thereafter on demand being made in that behalf by the creditor. The Supreme Court has held in that case, the limitation for the recovery started from the due date namely 31-/-1940 and not from 1/-5-1940 the date of alleged demand. The facts in that case are mentioned more in detail in para 3 of the ruling and the perusal of those facts goes to disclose that the transaction in that case was a loan and not deposit the appellant was one of the creditors of the company and he used to operate money from the company for 30 years past and therefore the ruling that is given by the Supreme Court in that case is in respect of a transaction of loan and not of deposit the ruling of the Supreme Court came up for consideration in j and k bank v nirmala devi, AIR 1958 j and k85 wherein their lordships of the jammu and kashmir High Court have also held that the transaction referred to in the decision reported in AIR 1958 SC 437 was one of debt, pure and simple, and not of deposit, the Supreme Court in ram janki devi and another v M/s. Juggilal kamlapat, AIR 1971 SC 2551 has held as follows:"12. The case of a deposit is something more than mere loan of money. It will depend on the facts of each case whether the transaction is clothed with the character of a deposit of money. The surrounding circumstances, the relationship and character of the transaction and the manner in which parties treated the transaction will throw light on the true form of the transaction. 13. It will depend on the facts of each case whether the transaction is clothed with the character of a deposit of money. The surrounding circumstances, the relationship and character of the transaction and the manner in which parties treated the transaction will throw light on the true form of the transaction. 13. The judicial committee in nawab major sir mohammed akbar khan v attar singh, AIR 1936 pc 171 spoke of the distinction between the deposit and loan to be that the two terms were not mutually exclusive but that a deposit not for a fixed term did not seem to impose an immediate obligation on the depositee to seek out the depositor and repay him. "there is a clear distinction between a loan and deposit and the terms are not mutually exclusive. Whether a transaction is a loan or deposit, will have to be gathered from the facts and circumstances of each case. But it is quite clear that when the particular transaction is a deposit and not a loan, it is Article 22 of the indian limitation act that will be attracted to the case. In V. Raja Sri nivasulu v M/s. Universal Corporation, ILR 1990 (2) Karnataka 1697, the question has been considered as to whether what is the starting point of limitation in cases of moneys in deposit. This court has held as follows:"if the money is deposited for a period certainly it becomes payable only on the expiry of the period and no demand can be made during the period of deposit. On the expiry of the period of maturity the amount in deposit does not cease to be one of deposit and becomes a loan or debt. "in this ruling of our high court, the learned judge has also referred to the ruling of jammu and kashmir High Court quoted above in which their lordships distinguished the ruling of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1958 SC 437 . It is clear that the said ruling of the Supreme Court is in respect of a loan and not deposit the facts and circumstances in this case clearly go to show that the transaction between the parties is of a deposit and not of a loan. Therefore, Article 22 of the indian limitation act is attracted to the facts of the case. ( 7 ) THE limitation will start from the date of the demand. Therefore, Article 22 of the indian limitation act is attracted to the facts of the case. ( 7 ) THE limitation will start from the date of the demand. The petitioner has issueda notice on 24-9-1988 calling upon the respondents to pay the amount deposited by her with them and she has filed the suit on 15-11-1988. As per Article 22 of the indian Limitation act. limitation will start from the date of demand i. e. , 24-9-1988, and the suit filed on 15-11-1988 will be well in time. The learned trial judge erred in dismissing the suit as barred by limitation. ( 8 ) LEARNED counsel for the respondents submits that in the deposit receipt, thecondition incorporated is that no intimation will be given by the respondents on the maturity of the deposit receipt and interest will cease to run from the date of maturity of the deposit. It is not disputed that neither the plaintiff nor the defendants have signed the said deposit receipt to that effect. In view of the fact that none of the parties has signed the deposit receipt agreeing to the said term, it cannot be said that it is one of the terms between the parties. Since the petitioner's suit is in time, she is entitled to a decree for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 5,000/- from the defendants. The respondents even though were called upon to return the deposit amount to the petitioner by her notice have not returned the amount. Therefore, the petitioner will also be entitled to the interest at the agreed rate i. e. , 18% per annum on the said amount as the respondents have wrongfully retained that amount with them inspite of the demand made by the petitioner for the return of the said amount so far as future rate of interest is concerned, I am of the opinion that taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case and also the fact that the transaction between the parties is a commercial transaction, the ends of justice will be met properly if the petitioner is awarded future interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of the suit till recovery of the amount. ( 9 ) FOR the reasons stated above, I make the following orderthe suit of the plaintiff is decreed as prayed for holding that the defendants are liable to pay Rs. 5,000/- with interest at the rate of 18% per annum on the said amount from the date of maturity till the date of the suit and at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of suit till the date of recovery, jointly and severally, with costs. --- *** --- .