JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the parties.This appeal is against the judgment and decree dated 25th Aug., 1999 by which the trial court decreed the suit of the plaintiff for Rs. 99.812.50/- and awarded interest @6% per annum over the due amount of Rs. 65,000/- only. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed the suit against the defendant alleging therein that the defendant is doing the business in the name of Harish Dresses at Udaipur. He took the loan of Rs. 35,000/- on 5th June, 1995 and executed a receipt on the same day and gave a cheque of Rs. 35,000/- in security for repayment of the said loan amount. On the same day, the defendant also took the loan of Rs. 30,000/- by giving cheque to be presented in the bank on 5th Nov., 1995 so that the loan amount of Rs. 35,000/- may be repaid to the plaintiff. It is submitted that the defendant agreed to pay the interest @ 1.75% per month against the interest by cheque dated 18th July, 1995. According to the plaintiff, the defendant did not pay the interest amount and principal amount as promised, therefore, the plaintiff was compelled to file the suit. The plaintiff claimed Rs. 65,000/- as principal amount and interest of Rs. 38,812.50/-, which is interest of 35 months. In total, the plaintiff claimed Rs. 1,04,812.50/- in his suit. 3. The defendant submitted written statement and denied the taking loan from the plaintiff. The defendant submitted that his cheques were lying with the signatures and the defendant took away the cheques and, therefore, the suit of the plaintiff deserves to be dismissed. The defendant denied the giving of receipts and cheques to the plaintiff. 4. In the trial court, the defendant appeared in witness box and stated that the plaintiff might have come to his house and might have taken away the defendant's signed blank cheques and papers from the letter-paid. However, in the cross examination, the defendant admitted his signature of Exs. 1, 2, 3 & 4. He further stated that he is not remembering when he signed the Exs. 1, 2, 3 & 4. The plaintiff in his statement stated that the receipts were written by the defendant's son Naresh Kumar and the defendant himself signed the receipts as well as cheques. 1, 2, 3 & 4. He further stated that he is not remembering when he signed the Exs. 1, 2, 3 & 4. The plaintiff in his statement stated that the receipts were written by the defendant's son Naresh Kumar and the defendant himself signed the receipts as well as cheques. In the cross-examination of the plaintiff, nothing has come out to cast clouds upon the credibility of the plaintiff. The defendant did not produce his son Naresh Kumar, who could have been best witness. 5. In the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, it is clear tat the plaintiff proved all the documents Exs. 1, 2, 3 & 4 and admittedly, the defendant did not pay either principal amount or interest over the principal amount. The trial court carefully considered the facts of the case and evidence and held that the defendant failed to prove that the plaintiff prepared the receipts as per his whims after taking away the empty letter-paid of the defendant's firm. 6. In view of the fact that the plaintiff able to prove the receipts as well as cheques, the plaintiff proved his case about landing of Rs. 65,000/-. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently submitted that the suit of the plaintiff was barred by the time because of the reason that Ex.1 & Ex.3 receipts are dated 5th June, 1995 whereas the suit has been filed by the plaintiff on 15th Oct., 1998, which is beyond the period of three years. I do not find any force in the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant because of The fact that the receipts dated 5th June, 1995 is only an acknowledgement and receipts admitted and executed by the defendant admitting that he took the loan of Rs. 34,0001- & Rs. 30,000/-. The due date for payment in the light of the cheques Ex.2 & Ex.4 was dated 15th Oct., 1995 & 5th Nov., 1995, therefore, the cause of action accrued only after 15th Oct., 1995. The plaintiff filed the suit on 15th Oct., 1998 which is well within the limitation. 8. In view of the above discussion, I do not find any force in the appeal of the appellant and the appeal is dismissed.Appeal Dismissed. *******