Judgment :- (This appeal is filed under Section 96 of C.P.C. r/w Order 41 Rule 1 of C.P.C., praying for the relief as stated therein.) This appeal has been preferred against the decree and Judgment dated 1.9.1989 in O.S.No.3466 of 1985 on the file of VIII Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai. The plaintiff, who lost the case before the trial Court, is the appellant herein. 2. The short facts of the case of the plaintiff are as follows: At the request of the first defendant, the plaintiff/bank granted certain credit facilities for Documentary Bill Purchase facility since 1979 onwards. The second defendant has stood as Guarantor for the due repayment of the amount due by the first defendant to the plaintiff/bank. The first defendant has been utilising the facility and has stopped operation of the account since 30.5.1983. He acknowledged his liability to pay the dues to the plaintiff/bank by executing a fresh promissory note on 19.5.1980. The letter of Revival dated 17.4.1982, and letter acknowledging liability on 17.7.1984 has been executed by the first defendant. Thereafter, the first defendant has failed to repay the dues in respect of the facility availed, in spite of demand by notice dated 16.10.1984. As on date, a sum of Rs.55,566.97ps is due from the first defendant. The second defendant is liable to pay the dues as Guarantor. Hence the suit. 3. The first defendant in his written statement would contend that this defendant has not availed any credit facility as alleged in the plaint from 1979 onwards. But this defendant had availed the said Documentary Bill Purchase facility ever since 1975 from the plaintiff/ bank to the extent of Rs.25,000/- for which a promissory note was executed as security for the repayment. It is further denied that this defendant has been utilising the facilities and has stopped the operation of the account from 30.5.1983. On the other hand, this defendant has filed to honour the Documents Bill Nos.75,77 & 78 dated 13.11.1979 and 27.11.1979 which were negotiated through the bank, even though the bill amounts were paid by the plaintiff/bank to this defendant. After collecting the documents back from the plaintiff/bank, this defendant had to allow his customers to take delivery of the consignment from the carriers and they promised to pay the bill amount to this defendant after some time. After collecting the documents back from the plaintiff/bank, this defendant had to allow his customers to take delivery of the consignment from the carriers and they promised to pay the bill amount to this defendant after some time. The customers of this defendant have failed to pay their dues to this defendant. Under such circumstances, this defendant could not discharge his dues to the plaintiff bank for the amount dues under the aforesaid bills. This defendant had dealings with the plaintiff/bank till 27.11.1979 and thereafter there was no dealing with the plaintiff/bank. It is false to state that this defendant has stopped operations of the account since 30.5.1983. This defendant does not admit the allegations that a fresh promissory note was executed on 19.5.1980 for a sum of Rs.50,000/-. The Document No.1 dated 19.5.1980 filed along with the plaint is a forged one, by converting the blank promissory note into a genuine one. On the very face of the document, any one can easily say that there is a material alteration not only in the date of promissory note but also affixing a revenue stamp of 20ps adjacent to the signature of this defendant. Even the amount and the rate of interest also have been filled by the plaintiff/bank in order to make it appear that this defendant executed a promissory note dated 19.5.1980 for a sum of Rs.50,000/- in favour of the plaintiff/bank. No prudent bank will allow the customer to have credit facilities ie., Documentary Bill Purchase facility for a larger sum i.e., for Rs.25,000/- to Rs 50,000/- when there was already due by this defendant to the plaintiff/bank. This defendant never agreed to pay the old dues by executing the alleged fresh promissory note on 19.5.1980 in favour of the plaintiff/bank. The alleged promissory note is hit by Section 35 of the Stamp Act. This defendant does not admit that letter of revival dated 17.4.1982 and the same was not executed by him. This defendant denied the execution of the revival letter dated 17.4.1982 in favour of the plaintiff/bank. This defendant disputes the signature therein. It is very clear that the signature in the said document must be a forged one. Hence, the plaintiff/bank is put to strict proof of the alleged revival letter dated 17.4.1982 which was executed on the said date by this defendant. This defendant is never acknowledged the liability on 17.7.1984. This defendant disputes the signature therein. It is very clear that the signature in the said document must be a forged one. Hence, the plaintiff/bank is put to strict proof of the alleged revival letter dated 17.4.1982 which was executed on the said date by this defendant. This defendant is never acknowledged the liability on 17.7.1984. There was no correspondence between this defendant and the plaintiff/bank after November 1979 and there was no transaction between them. The plaintiff/bank wants to rely on the alleged letter of revival dated 17.4.1982 as a fresh promise to pay a time barred debt. This defendant does not admit that a sum of Rs.55,566.97ps was due on the date of filing of the suit. The suit claim is barred by limitation. There is no cause of action to file the suit. Hence the suit is liable to be dismissed with costs. 4. The second defendant has adopted the written statement filed by the first defendant. 5. On the above pleadings, the learned trial Judge had framed six issues and after close scrutiny of the evidence, both the oral and documentary, has come to a conclusion that the plaintiff is not entitled to any relief in the suit as prayed for and consequently dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by the findings of the learned trial Judge, the plaintiff has preferred this appeal. 6. The only point to be decided in this appeal is Whether the suit is barred by limitation? 7. The Point: The entire suit rests on the suit promissory note Ex A1 said to have been executed by the plaintiff/bank on 19.5.1980 for Rs.50,000/- which was due to the plaintiff/bank in respect of prior loan facility transactions. In the cause of action column to the plaint, the plaintiff/ bank relies on Ex A3 revival letter said to have been executed by the first defendant on 17.4.1982. The learned trial Judge, after comparing the signature found in Ex A1 promissory note and Ex A3 revival letter has come to a definite conclusion that the signature contained in Ex A1 and Ex A3 are not that of one and the same person. The first defendant has specifically denied having executed EX A3 revival letter on 17.4.1982, so the burden is heavily upon the plaintiff to prove beyond any reasonable doubt that Ex A3 revival letter contains the signature of the first defendant to save limitation. 8. The first defendant has specifically denied having executed EX A3 revival letter on 17.4.1982, so the burden is heavily upon the plaintiff to prove beyond any reasonable doubt that Ex A3 revival letter contains the signature of the first defendant to save limitation. 8. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant would contend that apart from Ex A3, the first defendant has executed Ex A4 letter dated 9.6.1984 admitting the debt. Admittedly, Ex A4 will not be an acknowledgment to save the acknowledgment for the debt by the first defendant from the plaintiff/bank because Ex A1 is dated 19.5.1980 whereas Ex A4 is dated 9.6.1984 . Only, if Ex A3 is proved to be a genuine document, then only the limitation for Ex A1 will be saved. But the plaintiff/bank has miserably failed to prove that Ex A3 contains the signature of the first defendant. As per Section 73 of the Evidence Act, the learned trial Judge is competent to compare the admitted signature with that of the disputed signature. A mere glance at Ex A1 and Ex A3 will go to show that the signature contained in those documents were not signed by one and the same person. Under such circumstances, Ex A3 will not be a valid acknowledgment for the debt due under Ex A1. 9. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant also relied on Ex A24, Ex A25 and Ex A26 documents. In Ex A24, the first defendant has requested the plaintiff/bank, to adjust Rs.24,681.52ps towards the outstanding in respect of four bills connected with the business transactions. Ex A26 is dated 25.2.1983, the same request was made to adjust a sum of Rs.24681.52 ps towards the amount due under a gold ornament loan(GL.91/81). But there is no mention in Ex A1 promissory note that the said promissory note was executed for the loan due under gold ornament loan account(GL 91/81) obtained by the first defendant from the plaintiff/bank. Ex A25 is dated 24.2.1983 a letter written by the first defendant to the plaintiff/ bank to adjust a sum of Rs.24,681.52ps towards the loan due under gold ornaments loan account(GL 90/81). So from Exs A24,A25 and A26 , it is clear that the first defendant is having two loan accounts with the plaintiff/bank one under Gold ornaments loan in GL 90/81 and another Gold ornaments loan in GL 91/81. So from Exs A24,A25 and A26 , it is clear that the first defendant is having two loan accounts with the plaintiff/bank one under Gold ornaments loan in GL 90/81 and another Gold ornaments loan in GL 91/81. But there is no mention in Ex A1 promissory note that it was executed by the first defendant for the amount due under GL No.90/81 or under G.L.No.91/81. The only one document to save limitation for Ex A1 promissory Note is Ex A3, But the plaintiff/bank has failed to prove that the signature contained in ExA1 promissory note and the signature contained in Ex A3 belonged to one and the same person ie., the first defendant. Under such circumstances, the learned trial Judge has come to a correct conclusion that the plaintiff has failed to prove the case and consequently dismissed the suit with costs. Hence, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the findings of the learned trial Judge, which does not warrant any interference from this Court. 10. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant makes a request to this Court to send Exs A1 and A3 for getting an expert opinion. The said request cannot be acceded because a mere perusal of document Exs A1 and A3 and the signature contained therein will clearly go to show that the signatures are not that of one and the same person. The learned trial Judge exercised his power conferred under Section 73 of the Evidence Act, has come to a conclusion that signature contained in Ex A3 is not that of the signature of the first defendant. Under such circumstances, I hold on the point that the suit is barred by limitation and the decree and Judgment passed in O.S.No.3466 of 1985 need not be interfered with by this Court. The point is answered accordingly. 11. In fine, this appeal is dismissed with costs confirming the decree and Judgment in O.S.No.3466 of 1985 on the file of VIII Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai. Consequently, connected C.M.P.No.8496 of 2006 is also dismissed.