Judgment ( 1. ) THIS appeal under Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code has been preferred by the appellants being aggrieved by the Judgment and decree dated 22nd December, 2000 passed by III Additional District Judge, Damoh, in Civil suit No. l-B/2000 whereby the suit of the plaintiff has been decreed. ( 2. ) THE case of the plaintiff-Bank in the Trial Court was that on 28th march, 1985 a term loan of Rs. 1,81,000/- at the rate of 12. 5% per annum with quarterly rest was granted to defendant No. 1 to purchase the truck. The defendant No. 1 executed the deed of loan and hypothecation. The defendant no. 2 executed the guarantee deed. The loan was to be paid in instalments of rs. 5,000/- per month. The last instalment was payable in the month of May, 1988. The plaintiff filed the statement of account wherein the relief granted by the Government was credited in the account of defendant No. 1. On 13th August, 1988 the defendants and on 1-8-1990 and on 25-3-1991 the defendant No. 1 executed the acknowledgment of debt and revival letter in favour of the Bank. Since the intalment was not paid regularly, the legal notice was given but the defendants did not pay, hence the suit was filed for recovery of Rs. 4,87,784/- with interest thereon and to sale hypothecated Truck No. CPV-3464. ( 3. ) THE defendants by filing written statement mainly contended that the documents were not read over and explained to them. They have not executed any revival letter. They are riot affected persons. The interest claimed is very high. They are entitled for benefit of riot affected persons granted by the government. The suit is time barred, hence the prayer was made to dismiss the suit. The Trial Court framed the several issues, recorded the statement of Sanjay Kumar Telang (P. W. 1), B. G. Anand kumar (P. W. 2), S. Chandrashekhar (P. W. 3) and Prahlad Singh (D. W. 1), Balveer Singh Bagga (D. W. 2) and Joginder Singh Juneja (D. W. 3 ). ( 4. ) AFTER appreciating the evidence, Trial Court found the case of the plaintiff proved, hence decree the suit. ( 5. ( 4. ) AFTER appreciating the evidence, Trial Court found the case of the plaintiff proved, hence decree the suit. ( 5. ) THIS appeal is filed mainly on the ground that the finding of the Trial court that the appellants could not prove the loan granted under the scheme of riot affected persons is erroneous. The appellants were not liable to pay interest at the rate of 12. 5% per annum with quarterly rest and the claim laid against them was highly inflated and ought to have been scaled down after proper calculation in terms of the guidelines issued by the Reserve Bank of India with approval of the Central Government. The appellants denied their signature on revival letter and part payment and, therefore, a heavy burden lay on the respondent-Bank to prove the fact that the suit was within time under Sections 18 and 19 of the Limitation Act. The finding that the suit was within limitation is erroneous. The Trial Judge erred in law in refusing to examine the handwriting expert, therefore, the impugned judgment and decree is contrary to law and evidence on record. Therefore, deserves to be set aside. ( 6. ) THE learned Counsel for the appellants has submitted that the loan was granted under the scheme of riot affected persons, therefore, the appellants were not liable to pay interest at the rate of 12. 5% per annum with quarterly rest. The interest should not have been claimed more than 6% per annum. Trial court erred in rejecting prayer to examine the expert. ( 7. ) THE main point of consideration in this appeal is whether the Trial court has committed any error in law by decreeing the suit of plaintiff/respondent Bank ? ( 8. ) S. K. Telang (P. W. 1) has deposed that the loan was advanced at the rate of 12. 5% with quarterly rest vide Exhibit P-1. B. G. Anand kumar (P. W. 2)has categorically stated that the relief granted by the Central Government has been credited in the account of defendant on 23rd June, 1993 and after deducting that amount, the balance is shown in the statement of account (Exh. P-7 ). On the other hand, Prahlad Singh (D. W. 1) has no knowledge whether the relief so granted to him has been credited in his account. ( 9. P-7 ). On the other hand, Prahlad Singh (D. W. 1) has no knowledge whether the relief so granted to him has been credited in his account. ( 9. ) IT is apparently clear from the oral and documentary evidence that the loan was advanced at the rate of 12. 5% per annum with quarterly rest and the relief granted by the Central Government was credited in his account. The defendants have been failed to prove the fact that the amount of relief granted by the Government has not been credited. The Trial Court has dealt with this issue in great detail. The findings in this regard based on evidence cannot be said erroneous and hence affirmed. ( 10. ) THE learned Counsel for the appellants further submitted that the defendants have denied to execute the acknowledgment of debt and part payment, therefore, the suit was time barred and ought to have been dismissed. The learned Counsel for the appellants has referred the following cases in support of his argument:- (i) Ska Ram Vs. Mt. Mahmudi Begam and another, AIR 1934 lahore 475. (ii) Nallathambi Nadar Chellakannu Nadar Vs. Ammal Nadachi chellathankom Nadachi and others, AIR 1964 Madras 169. (iii) Sant Lai Mahton Vs. Kamla Prasad and others, AIR 1951 supreme Court 477. ( 11. ) WE find no merit in the submission for the reasons mentioned hereafter. S. Chandrashekhar (P. W. 3) has stated that defendants had executed the revival letter (Exh. P-8) on 13-2-1988. The defendant No. 1 again executed the revival letters Exhs. P-9 and P-10. The defendant No. 1 has also sent the letter Exh. P-11 stating therein to deposit the remaining instalment amount from August, 1990. He has further stated that Balveer Singh, brother of defendant No. 1 Prahlad Singh, has deposited the amount of Rs. 2,000/- on 18th june, 1991 and 7th June, 1991 vide Exhs. P-12 and P-13 which contain his signatures. Prahlad Singh (D. W. 1) has stated that no revival letters were taken, however he has admitted that the revival letters Exhs. P-8 and P-9 contained his signature. However, he has denied the signature on the revival letter Exh. P-10. Balveer Singh Bagga (D. W. 2) has denied to deposit the amount in the account of defendant No. 1 vide Exhs. P-12 and P-13. ( 12. ) THE case of the plaintiff-Bank is based on oral and documentary evidence. P-8 and P-9 contained his signature. However, he has denied the signature on the revival letter Exh. P-10. Balveer Singh Bagga (D. W. 2) has denied to deposit the amount in the account of defendant No. 1 vide Exhs. P-12 and P-13. ( 12. ) THE case of the plaintiff-Bank is based on oral and documentary evidence. The defendant No. 1 has himself admitted the signature on revival letters Exhs. P-8 and P-9. He has also admitted the submission of application exh. P-11. On the basis of documentary evidence it is amply proved that the defendants executed the acknowledgment as to debt and revival letters Exhs. P-8 to P-10. Vide Exhs. P-12 and P-13 Rs. 2,000/- each have been deposited in the account of defendant No. 1 by Balveer Singh Bagga (D. W. 2 ). He is the brother of defendant No. 1 Prahlad Singh hence possibility of such deposits by him cannot be ruled out. It appears that the defendants have taken the defence in this regard only with a view to avoid the liability. ( 13. ) THE loan was advanced on 28th March, 1985 vide Exh. P-1. The revival letters Exh. P-8 to P-10 were executed on 13th February, 1988, 1st august, 1990 and on 24th March, 1991 respectively. The defendant No. 1 also sent the application Exh. P-11 on 22nd August, 1990 incurring the liability and to pay the loan instalments from August, 1990 regularly. The amount of rs. 2,000/- each has been deposited in the account of defendant No 1 by his brother Balveer Singh Bagga vide Exh. P-12 and P-13 respectively on 6th July, 1991 and 18th June, 1991. The suit was filed on 1st of February, 1994. These prima facie go to show that the suit was filed within the period of limitation. ( 14. ) IN Sita Ram Vs. Mt. Mahmudi Begam and another (supra), it has been held that a payment made as a matter of grace and not towards any admitted debt does not save limitation. In Nallathambi Nadar Chellakannu nadar Vs. Ammal Nadachi Chellathankon Nadachi and others (supra), it has been held that there are in essence two essential requirements of the section:- (1) There should be an acknowledgment of liability in respect of the property or the right in question and (2) it should be by the party against whom such property or right is claimed. Ammal Nadachi Chellathankon Nadachi and others (supra), it has been held that there are in essence two essential requirements of the section:- (1) There should be an acknowledgment of liability in respect of the property or the right in question and (2) it should be by the party against whom such property or right is claimed. An acknowledgment of liability presupposes that the person acknowledging possesses some interest which can be bound by his statement. If he has no such interest, it will be a misnomer to call his statement, an acknowledgment of liability. In Sant Lal Mahton Vs. Kamla Prasad and others (supra), it has been held that to claim exemption under Section 20, the plaintiff must be in a position to allege and prove not only that there was payment of interest on a debt or part payment of the principal, but that such payment had been acknowledged in writing in the manner contemplated by that section. ( 15. ) RATIO of none of aforesaid decisions is helpful in the instant case. The provision regarding effect of acknowledgment in writing is contained in section 18 of Indian Limitation Act, 1963 as follows:-" (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 derives his title or liability, a fresh period of limitation shall be computed from the time when the acknowledgment was so signed. " the provision of effect of payment on account of debt or of interest on legacy is contained in Section 19 of Indian Limitation Act, 1963 which runs as follows:-"where payment on account of a debt or of interest on a legacy is made before the expiration of the prescribed period by the person liable to pay the debt or legacy or by his agent duly authorised in this behalf, a fresh period of limitation shall be computed from the time when the payment was made ? so far as the present case is concerned, it has been proved that after taking loan defendants executed revival letters and some part payment was also made in the account of defendant No. 1 The defendant No. 1 has himself submitted an application to pay the regular instalment from August, 1990. The Trial Court has discussed this issue in great detail and we find that the Trial Court has not committed any error in accepting the suit within limitation, therefore, we affirm the finding of Trial Court in this regard. ( 16. ) THE learned Counsel for the appellants has also advanced the arguments that the Trial Judge erred in refusing to examine the handwriting expert. On perusal of the record, we find that an application was filed under order 26 Rule 10-A of the Civil Procedure Code by defendants on 6th december, 2000 for examining the signatures of defendant No. 2 on Exh. P-8. The application was considered by the Trial Court and rejected vide order dated 8th December, 2000 on the basis that the application is filed after the closure of evidence by both the parties, the defendant No. 2 himself has admitted in written statement that he has given the guarantee for securing the loan. The defendant no. 1 has also undertaken to pay the balance amount the loan. The Trial Court has given the sufficient reasons for rejecting the aforesaid application and, therefore, it has not committed any error in law. ( 17. ) ON foregoing discussions, we do not find any merit in this appeal, hence, deserves to be dismissed. ( 18. ) CONSEQUENTLY, the appeal fails and is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs. First Appeal dismissed.