JUDGMENT 1. - Heard for confirmation of stay order dated 14.7.2004 in these three connected appeals, by which recovery of money from defendant appellant was stayed by this Court. 2. Mr. R.K. Agrawal, learned counsel for the appellant urged that in the present appeal, the appellant mainly challenges the impugned decree and judgment on the ground of suit being barred by limitation and secondly by the principles of res judicata because for the same loan transactions there was already an arbitration award in favour of the plaintiff which was subject matter of Section 34 application under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 in the competent Court. Mr. Agrawal firstly submitted that the learned trial Court while deciding issue No. 5 e.k facie exercised fallen into error in holding the suit to be within limitation on the basis of part payment of loan made in February, 1999 whereas the suit was filed on 30.10.2002, after expiry of prescribed period of limitation of three years in February, 2002, still the Court held the suit to be within limitation which was an error in law. He submitted that Ex.3 cheque given to the plaintiff at the time of advance of loan was dated in different ink (black ink) to be 28.12.2001 though the remaining writings were in blue ink and, therefore, the said date was apparently put by the plaintiff to bring the suit within limitation as the said cheque was dishonoured. The second submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant is that the learned trial Court itself has noticed while deciding the issue No. 6-A that arbitration proceedings initiated by the agent Prem Chand Modani which included also the loan which is subject matter of present suit, was with full authority and consent of the plaintiff and, therefore, once an award was passed under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, separate suit at the instance of plaintiff was not maintainable and was barred by the principles of res judicata. He relied upon the following judgments in support of his submission relating to limitation. (i) Mahendra Singh and Ors. He relied upon the following judgments in support of his submission relating to limitation. (i) Mahendra Singh and Ors. v. The Commissioner of Chota Nagpur Division and Ors., AIR 1958 Patna 603 [Head Note(d)] (ii) Chintaman Dhundiraj v. Sadguru Narayan Maharaj Datt Sansthan and Ors., AIR 1958 Bombay 553 ; (iii) Arjunlal Dhanji Rathod v. Dayararn Premji Padiar, AIR 1971 Patna 278 ; and (iv) Northern India Finance Corporation (P) Ltd. v. R.L. Soni, AIR 1973 Punjab and Haryana 35 . Regarding the suit being barred by principles of res judicata, he relied upon: (i) P.C. Ray and Co. (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India, AIR 1971 Calcutta 512 , and (ii) Akbar All (deceased by LR) and Ors. v. Mumtaz Hussain and Ann, AIR 1987 Bombay 39 . Further relying on National Aluminium Co. Ltd. v. Pressteel and Fabrications (P) Ltd. and Anr., (2004) 1 SCC 540 he submitted that merely because on account of filing of application under Section 34 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, the arbitration award stood automatically suspended and could not be executed, it does not mean that the another suit for the same loan transaction was maintainable and, therefore, the learned trial Court has erred in holding the suit to be maintainable and decreeing the same in favour of the plaintiff. He, therefore, urged for confirmation of stay order dated 14.7.2004 against recovery. . 3. Countering these submissions, Mr. G.P. Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the respondent plaintiff submitted that Ex.3 cheque dated 28.12.2001 clearly brought the suit within limitation of three years though the said date has not gone into computation of limitation of three years by the learned trial Court while giving its finding on issue No. 5 relating to limitation. Drawing attention of the Court towards Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, he submitted that the said date 28.12.2001 will be presumed to have been written by the defendant while giving the said cheque. Regarding arbitration award, he submitted that the said arbitration proceedings were on account of agreement between Prem Chand Modani, the agent and the defendant and plaintiff was not bound by the said arbitration agreement nor he was a party in the arbitration proceedings, therefore, the present suit cannot be barred on the principles of res judicata. Regarding arbitration award, he submitted that the said arbitration proceedings were on account of agreement between Prem Chand Modani, the agent and the defendant and plaintiff was not bound by the said arbitration agreement nor he was a party in the arbitration proceedings, therefore, the present suit cannot be barred on the principles of res judicata. In Rajesh Kumari v. Prem Chand Jain, AIR 1998 Delhi 80 , Hon'ble justice R.C. Lahoti (as his Lordships then was) held that issuance of cheque by debtor extends the period of limitation by further three years from the date of such payment even though such cheque was dishonoured during the pendency of the suit and such a dishonour of cheque cannot undo the advantage of extension of limitation earned by the creditor. Therefore, Mr. Sharma submitted that on account of this cheque dated 28.12.2001 having been dishonoured, there was an acknowledgment of debt due by the defendant and the period of limitation stood extended by three years. 4. Having considered the rival submission at bar and after giving my thoughtful consideration to the relevant case laws cited above, this Court is of the opinion that the stay order dated 14.7.2004 deserve to be confirmed during the pendency of these appeals. The reasons in brief are like these. 5. The limitation may or may not be extended by giving -a cheque dated 28.12.2001 Ex.3 which was dishonoured and this issue is required to be debated in little more detail while deciding the present appeals as there is divergence of views from different High Court on this issue and there appears to be no direct ruling of Rajasthan High Court on this issue or that of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 6. As far as arbitration award is concerned, the learned trial Court has clearly noted that the arbitration proceedings were pursued by the agent of the plaintiff Mr. Prem Chand Modani and there was full consent and authority of the plaintiff also for pursuing the arbitration proceedings which admittedly covered the loan amounts which are subject matter of the present suit. Once an award is passed which holds the status of decree under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, prima facie the principles of constructive res judicata may apply. I low ever, this issue should also remain open and may require a little more debate. 7. Once an award is passed which holds the status of decree under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, prima facie the principles of constructive res judicata may apply. I low ever, this issue should also remain open and may require a little more debate. 7. Be that as it may, as far as confirmation of stay order is concerned, there appears to be no reason why the recovery of the amount in question under the decree should be allowed at this stage by vacating the stay order granted on 14.7.2004 which has held the field, for almost three years now. 8. Accordingly, the stay order dated. 14.7.2004 is confirmed. The stay application is disposed of. A copy of this order be placed in all the three connected matters.Stay application disposed of. *******