Judgment : 1. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 13.9.1993, passed by the 10th Jt. Civil Judge (J.D.), Amravati in Regular Civil Suit No.30/1991, decreeing the suit of the respondent/plaintiff in the sum of Rs.23,400/- with future interest @ 18% per annum from the date of suit till its realization and confirmed in appeal by the Extra Joint District Judge, Amravati on 3.2.1999 in Regular Civil Appeal No.4/1994, the present appeal was filed by the appellant/defendant. 2. In support of the appeal, Shri Rahul Dhande, the learned Counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that though there is concurrent finding of fact recorded by both the Courts below while decreeing the suit of the respondent/plaintiff, the findings of facts are utterly perverse and thus would constitute substantial question of law. The findings are not based on evidence on record documentary as well as oral. According to the learned Counsel for the appellant, the suit was clearly barred by limitation but the Courts below have relied on the documents Exh. 81 and 82 dated 14.1.1988 and 24.2.1988, showing the payment of Rs.200/- each allegedly made by the present appellant/defendant in order to bring the suit within limitation. The learned Counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that these documents Exh.81 and 82 if carefully perused, would show that they had never been signed by the appellant/defendant and have been stoutly denied by him. According to the learned Counsel for the appellant when the documents Exh.81 and 82 were never signed by the appellant, the Courts below could not have taken them into consideration as acknowledgments within the meaning of the provisions of the Limitation Act in order to extend the limitation. The learned Counsel then went on to argue that the documents Exh.81 and 82 show that the alleged payment of Rs.200/- was received by one Shri Rambhau Loney allegedly from the appellant and that the said Shri Loney had thereafter made the payment to one Shri Pattalwar Advocate and further that the said Advocate Shri Pattalwar had made the said payment to the respondent/plaintiff. The Courts below ought to have rejected this theory propounded by the respondent/plaintiff in order to sustain the money claim in question. The Courts below ought to have rejected this theory propounded by the respondent/plaintiff in order to sustain the money claim in question. The learned Counsel thus submitted that the suit having been thus filed on 10.1.1999 was clearly barred by law of limitation and was required to be dismissed as such, rejecting the evidence of said Rambhau Loney also. The said Advocate Shri Pattalwar was never examined by the plaintiff before the Court to prove the receipt of payment by him or onward payment to the plaintiff by him. The learned Counsel then went on to argue that the transaction in question was money lending transaction and that would certainly be in contravention of the provisions of the Money Lending Act, which cannot be enforced by a Court of law. Invoking Section 103 of the Code of Civil Procedure, he argued that High Court has powers to determine even questions of facts while hearing a second appeal. Therefore, though no issue was framed by the trial Court on the question of money-lending nature of transaction, this Court can decide the said question. He also argued that the documents relied upon by the plaintiff were insufficiently stamped and hence could not be made admissible in evidence. 3. None appeared for the respondent despite several opportunities. Finally, on 2.7.2011, Advocate Shri R.R. Vyas for the respondent filed pursis, stating that the respondent had taken all his papers and is not in a position to defend the present appeal. Pursis is accepted. 4. I have heard learned Counsel for the appellant on several dates, who argued the appeal with good preparation. I have gone through the impugned judgment and decree passed by the Courts below. I have also gone through the entire evidence documentary as well as oral. Upon hearing the learned Counsel for the appellant, I find that following substantial question of law arises in the present appeal. (i) Whether the Courts below could have taken into consideration the documents Exh.81 and 82 as the documents of acknowledgments in order to bring the suit within limitation and whether consequently, the suit was barred by law of limitation ? 5. The submissions made by the learned Counsel for the appellant on Section 103 of the Code of Civil Procedure with reference to money lending nature of transaction and insufficient stamped documents will have to be rejected for the following reasons. 5. The submissions made by the learned Counsel for the appellant on Section 103 of the Code of Civil Procedure with reference to money lending nature of transaction and insufficient stamped documents will have to be rejected for the following reasons. Section 103 of the Code of Civil Procedure reads thus : “103. Power of High Court to determine issues of fact. - In any second appeal, the High Court may, if the evidence on the record is sufficient, determine any issue necessary for the disposal of the appeal, - (a) which has not been determined by the lower Appellate Court or both by the Court of first instance and the lower Appellate court, or (b) which has been wrongly determined by such Court or Courts by reason of a decision on such question of law as is referred to in section 100.” 6. Perusal of the provisions brought into force w.e.f. 1.2.1977 shows first contingency namely that the issue of fact not determined by lower Courts should be 'necessary' for disposal of the appeal; and if the same is wrongly determined. In the case at hand, on these two questions issues were never framed nor tried and therefore, respondent had no notice thereof to contest. The said provision cannot read in violation of principles of natural justice; else it would be destructive of the rule of audialteram partem. No provisions should be read de hors these principles. 7. It is not in dispute that the suit was filed on 10.1.1991 by the respondent/plaintiff for recovery of money. The documents Exh.81 and 82 are dated 14.1.1988 and 24.2.1988 respectively. These two documents have been treated as acknowledgments within the meaning of Section 18 of the Limitation Act for the purposes of examining whether the suit was filed within limitation or not. It was the case of the respondent/plaintiff that she had paid Rs.20,000/- by way of loan and the appellant had signed hand loan receipt Exh.22 on 22.2.1986. According to the respondent, the appellant used to pay amount in small installments through one Rambhau Loney and Advocate Shri Pattalwar. The plaintiff relied on the last receipts Exh.81 and 82 dated 14.1.1988 and 24.2.1988 to contend that these two receipts clearly brought the suit within limitation and they were acknowledgments for that purpose. According to the respondent, the appellant used to pay amount in small installments through one Rambhau Loney and Advocate Shri Pattalwar. The plaintiff relied on the last receipts Exh.81 and 82 dated 14.1.1988 and 24.2.1988 to contend that these two receipts clearly brought the suit within limitation and they were acknowledgments for that purpose. The question that arises for consideration before this Court is interpretation of the documents Exh.81 and 82 since all earlier documents are of no relevance for determining the issue in question. Section 18 of the Limitation Act 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 derives 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 Evidence Act, 1872 (I of 1872), oral evidence of its contents shall not be received. Explanation.- For the purposes of this section. - (a) an acknowledgment may be sufficient though it omits to specify the exact nature of the property or right, or averse that the time for payment, delivery, performance or enjoyment has not yet come or is accompanied by refusal to pay, deliver, perform or permit to enjoy, or is coupled with a claim to set-off, or is addressed to a person other than a person entitled to the property or right; (b) the word “signed” means signed either personally or by an agent duly authorised in this behalf; and (c) an application for the execution of a decree or order shall not be deemed to be an application in respect of any property or right.” Perusal of the above provision shows that the 'acknowledgment' spoken of must be in 'writing' and 'signed' by a party or its duly authorised agent. The burden of proof about it is surely on the plaintiff. There is no doubt that it can be express or implied. The burden of proof about it is surely on the plaintiff. There is no doubt that it can be express or implied. The plaint is silent about the agent Rambhau Loney having any express or implied authority. Rambhau stated in his cross-examination that he had no authority whatsoever from the appellant to make payment under Exh.81 and 82. Hence, there is no 'acknowledgment' for extending the limitation. 8. I have perused the documents Exh.81 and 82 and the relevant oral evidence of the parties. The documents Exh.81 and 82 both do not bear the signature of the appellant/defendant. Both these documents/receipts show that Rambhau Loney had collected Rs.200/- each on both occasions from the appellant and paid Rs.200/- on each occasion to Advocate Shri Pattalwar and then Advocate Shri Pattalwar paid the said amount to respondent/plaintiff. Plaintiff and Advocate Shri Pattalwar had signed Exh.81 and 82 in token of receipt. Neither Advocate Shri Pattalwar was examined nor Exh.81 and 82 were got proved from Rambhau Loney. In other words, documents Exh.81 and 82 in the first place have not been proved according to law so that they could be read in evidence as they are. To sum up, if these two documents Exh.81 and 82 are ignored from consideration and looking at the last acknowledgment, namely Exh.70, dated 27.10.1987, signed by the appellant/defendant for Rs.500/-, the suit ought to have been filed on or before 26.10.1990 but the suit in the instant case was filed on 10.1.1991 i.e. beyond the period of limitation of three years. As a sequel to the above discussion, it will have to be held that Exh.81 and 82 cannot be treated as valid acknowledgments within the meaning of Section 18 of the Limitation Act for the purposes of treating the suit as the one within limitation. The substantial question of law, therefore, will have to be answered holding that the suit filed by respondent/plaintiff was clearly barred by limitation and the documents Exh.81 and 82 were not proved in accordance with law and were not the acknowledgments, contemplated by Section 18 of the Limitation Act. In the result, the second appeal must succeed. As a sequel, I make the following order. ORDER (i) Second Appeal No.229/1999 is allowed with costs throughout. (ii) The judgment and decree passed by the 10th Jt. In the result, the second appeal must succeed. As a sequel, I make the following order. ORDER (i) Second Appeal No.229/1999 is allowed with costs throughout. (ii) The judgment and decree passed by the 10th Jt. Civil Judge (J.D.), Amravati in Regular Civil Suit No.30/1991 on 13.9.1993 and the judgment and decree passed by the Extra Joint District Judge, Amravati in Regular Civil Appeal No.4/1994 on 3.2.1999 are set aside. (iii) The suit of the plaintiff is dismissed with costs. Decree be drawn up accordingly.