Judgment ( 1. ) FEELING aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 11-7-1994 passed by the 11th Additional District Judge, Jabalpur in Civil Suit No. 99-B/94 dismissing his suit, the appellant has preferred this appeal under Section 96 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. ( 2. ) NO exhaustive statements of facts are necessary for the disposal of this appeal. In brief, the suit of the plaintiff is that defendant No. 1 applied to obtain loan of Rs. 24,000/- from the plaintiff-bank in order to promote its business and, accordingly, a loan to the tune of Rs. 24,000/was sanctioned and the aforesaid amount was paid to it by the bank on 28-11-1984 against a demand promissory note for the said amount duly executed and signed by the defendant No. 1 promising to pay a sum of Rs. 24,000/- on demand together with interest as indicated in the document. The said amount of loan was required to be paid quarterly. As defendants having failed to repay the loan amount, a suit for recovery has been filed on 1-3-1989. ( 3. ) SEPARATE written statements were filed by the defendants. In the written statements, inter alia, it has been pleaded that the suit is barred by prescribed period of limitation. ( 4. ) THE learned Trial Judge framed issues and thereafter recorded the evidence of the parties and ultimately came to hold that for want of documents as well as, as the suit is barred by prescribed period of limitation, dismissed the suit. Hence this appeal. ( 5. ) IN this appeal the respondents were served but they did not appear and thereafter SPC was also issued to them, however, they remain absent as such this appeal is heard in their absence. ( 6. ) IT has been contended by Shri B. M. Dwivedi, learned Counsel for the appellant, that the learned Trial Judge erred in law in dismissing the suit of the plaintiff being barred by limitation. According to the learned Counsel if Ex. P-6 is considered in proper prospective then the suit can not be thrown on the ground of limitation. In support of his contention he has placed heavy reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of Bhagwant Rao v. Mohammad Khan, 1977 JLJ 751 . According to the learned Counsel if Ex. P-6 is considered in proper prospective then the suit can not be thrown on the ground of limitation. In support of his contention he has placed heavy reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of Bhagwant Rao v. Mohammad Khan, 1977 JLJ 751 . The appellant has also filed an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC along with certain documents on the averments that Shri Gopinath Agrawal, who was Branch Manager of the Bank at the relevant time, was under suspension as some cases were present against him. Shri Sameer Sen Gupta, Branch Manager who filed and was looking after the suit also died during the pendency of the suit on account of heart attack. In these circumstances, necessary documents including the application for advance of loan made to Shri K. L. Jain, proprietor of the defendant, could not be filed. As the documents have been discovered the same are filed along with the application. In support of the application an affidavit of M. P. Choudhary, Branch Manager of the plaintiff-bank has been filed. ( 7. ) I shall first consider the finding of the learned Trial Judge dismissing the suit being barred by the prescribed period of limitation. The learned Judge framed Issue No. 6 on the question of limitation and on going through Paragraphs 22 to 25 it is perceivable that because the loan was obtained by defendant No. 1 on 28-11-1984 and the suit was instituted on 1-3-1989, therefore, it was held to be barred by limitation. While considering the document (Ex. P-6) it was held by the Trial Court that because the same was not executed and acknowledged by the defendant within the prescribed period of limitation as such this document would also not help the plaintiff. On these grounds, inter-alia, the suit was dismissed. ( 8. ) BEFORE dealing with the findings of the learned Trial Judge I think it appropriate to re-write the relevant part of the document (Ex. P-6), which reads thus :-" if you are satisfied as to the correctness of this balance, kindly sign below and return this confirmation form entire. Should your confirmation be not received within one month from this date. United Bank of India will conclude that you admit the balance stated herein as correct. P-6), which reads thus :-" if you are satisfied as to the correctness of this balance, kindly sign below and return this confirmation form entire. Should your confirmation be not received within one month from this date. United Bank of India will conclude that you admit the balance stated herein as correct. You are requested to submit your Pass Book to the Bank for its being written up to date in your own interest, if you have not already done so. Yours faithfully Manager" This document is dated 23rd April, 1988. At the bottom of this document K. L. Jain who is the proprietor of the defendant No. 1 firm has signed it. If this document (Ex. P-6) is considered in proper prospective, it can not be said that this document is a waste paper. At this juncture, it would be relevant to refer Section 18 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963, which reads thus :- "18. Effect of acknowledgment in writing.-- (1) Where, before the expiration of the prescribed period 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, or by any person through whom he drives his title or liability, a fresh period of limitation shall be computed from the time when the acknowledgment was so signed. (2) Where the writing containing the acknowledgment is undated, oral evidence may be given of the time when it was signed; but subject to the provisions of the Indian Penal Act, 1372 (1 of 1872), oral evidence of its contents shall not be received. " ( 9. ) IF Section 18 of the Limitation Act and the document (Ex. P-6) are kept in juxtaposition, it would become clear that the defendant before the expiry of the prescribed period of limitation for a suit acknowledged the liability as he signed this document on 23-4-1988. It is no more in dispute that the loan was obtained on 28-11-1984 and as per Ex. P-1 which is a promissory note and, according to which, the defendant was bound to re-pay the amount quarterly. If the document (Ex. P-1), promissory note, is worked out, the last instalment was required to be paid on 28-11-1988 and before the expiration of this date, document (Ex. P-1 which is a promissory note and, according to which, the defendant was bound to re-pay the amount quarterly. If the document (Ex. P-1), promissory note, is worked out, the last instalment was required to be paid on 28-11-1988 and before the expiration of this date, document (Ex. P-6) as referred to hereinabove, was executed on 23-4-1988 and if this be the position, in my opinion, the learned Trial Judge erred in law in dismissing the suit as barred by time. Because on interpretation of Ex. P-1, it is noted that last instalment was required to be paid by defendant on 28-11-1988 and before the expiration of three years, on 23-4-1988 Ex. P-6 was executed. The case of Bhagwant Rao (supra), squarely covers the dispute in which the learned Single Judge of this Court in Paras 7 and 8 held as under:-" 7. On a careful examination of the contents of the bond (Ex. P-1), I find that the right to recover the whole amount of the bond accrued to the plaintiff only upon default of payment of all the instalments and he could not have brought the suit for the recovery of the whole amount before the expiry of ten months from the date of the bond. The present is not a suit for recovery of instalments having fallen due and, therefore, time could not run from the date on which each instalment fell due. It would not reasonable to hold from the terms of the bond that the creditor after having acquired the right to recover the whole amount waited till the date of the last instalment nor it is a case of there being an option to the creditor to bring the suit for the whole amount of default of payment of any one or more instalments. 8. The principle laid down in AIR 1959 Madras 82, relied Upon by the learned Counsel for the non-petitioner has not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case as there is no provision in the suit document in the nature of extension of the period of contract. On the other hand, in my opinion, the plaintiff had no right to bring the suit for the whole amount or a part of it before the expiry of ten months from the date of demand. On the other hand, in my opinion, the plaintiff had no right to bring the suit for the whole amount or a part of it before the expiry of ten months from the date of demand. In this view of the matter the cause of action accrued to the plaintiff after the expiry of ten months from 18-9-1966 that is on 18-7-1967 and the suit has been brought within limitation on 17th July, 1970. " ( 10. ) IN view of the above, according to me, the learned Trial Judge erred in law, by misinterpreting the documents (Ex. P-6) came to hold that the suit was barred by limitation and dismissed the suit. The suit is held to be within limitation. The learned Trial Judge also dismissed the suit of the plaintiff on account of inadequacy of the documentary evidence which was in the power and possession of the plaintiff-bank but the same was not filed. However, looking to the averments made in the application filed under Order 41 Rule 27, CPC, which is supported by affidavit of the Branch Manager of the plaintiff-bank and as the same has also not been rebutted, the application is hereby allowed and the documents are taken on record. The defendants are given opportunity to rebut these documents if they so desire. ( 11. ) IN the result, the appeal succeeds and is hereby allowed. The judgment and decree dismissing the suit of the plaintiff is hereby set aside and the case is sent back to the Trial Court to decide in accordance with law by taking the documents filed along with the application under Order 41 Rule 27, CPC on record. The plaintiff is hereby directed to file the original documents in the Trial Court and prove them in accordance with law. The defendants are directed that if they so desire, may rebut the additional evidence filed by the plaintiff in the Trial Court by adducing the evidence. Looking to the entire facts and circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs so far as this appeal is concerned.