JUDGMENT 1. This First Appeal is filed under Section 94(4) of Code of Civil Procedure against the order dated 30.9.2008 in O.S.No.29 of 2005 on the file of the Court of Additional District & Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Vellore. 2. The first defendant is the appellant. The plaintiff/first respondent filed a Suit for recovery of money. 3. Following are the allegations contained in Plaint: (a) The 2nd defendant is the son of 1st defendant. The first defendant is the 'kartha' of the family and in the joint family, the first defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.2,50,000/-on 10.5.1999 from the plaintiff, agreeing to repay the same along with interest at the rate of 2% p.a. and also executed a promissory note in this regard. On 25.6.2002, the first defendant admitted the execution of the pro note and also agreed to repay the loan within two or three years by making an acknowledgement through his Advocate's Notice dated 25.6.2002. (b) Again on 23.6.2003, the first defendant sent another notice through his Advocate, stating that he had discharged the entire loan amount on 20.7.2003, and returned the pro note to the plaintiff. The plaintiff on 27.8.2003, issued a notice to the first defendant to pay the amount and the same was received by him on 28.7.2003. He also sent a reply on 29.7.2003, stating that he had repaid the entire loan amount. But the defendant did not pay any amount to the plaintiff and it is false to state that on 20.7.2003, the first defendant repaid the entire amount. (c) In order to divert the claim of the plaintiff, the first defendant has settled his property in favour of his son on 27.2.2002, by means of a Settlement Deed. However, the genuiness of the said transaction is denied. Even if it is true, the 2nd defendant is bound to pay the loan amount as he has also enjoyed the loan amount. Since the 2nd defendant is also a member of the joint family, he has also been impleaded as a party. Hence the Suit has been filed for a sum of Rs.5,10,666.65, being the principal and interest. 4. The averments in the written statement filed on behalf of the 1st defendant is that the Suit is not maintainable and the first defendant has paid the entire amount. Further, the Suit itself is time barred and hence the Suit is not maintainable. 5. 4. The averments in the written statement filed on behalf of the 1st defendant is that the Suit is not maintainable and the first defendant has paid the entire amount. Further, the Suit itself is time barred and hence the Suit is not maintainable. 5. The following allegations are found in the additional written statement filed by the first defendant: (a) The suit debt is a time barred one; that the notice dated 25.8.2002, issued by the Advocate acknowledging the execution of promissory note will not amount to acknowledgement of time barred debt; that it can be considered only if the same had been issued before the expiry of three years period, but the suit promissory note got time barred on 10.5.2002, however, the notice was dated 25.6.2002; that the notice issued by the Advocate which did not contain the signature of the first defendant cannot be considered as an acknowledgement of the time barred debt and hence there is absolutely no cause of action for the Suit on 25.6.2002. (b) The Suit promissory note got time barred on 10.5.2002, but the Suit has been filed only in 2003, hence the Suit is barred by limitation and hence the suit promissory note cannot be enforced. Unless there is any specific acknowledgement of debt acknowledging the liability and promising to pay the same under different document or agreement, the period of limitation will not extend after 10.5.2002. Further, since the suit is hit by section 25 of the Indian Contract Act, the suit promissory note cannot be enforced. 6. In the Written statement of the second defendant, the allegations available are as follows: (a) The second defendant states that even as per the plaint averments, he had not executed the Suit Promissory Note and he did not borrow any amount from the plaintiff; that the defendants family is a weaver's family and as the suit debt was not borrowed by the first defendant for the family or legal necessity, the second defendant is not liable for the suit claim and that there is no question of joint family. (b) Neither the first defendant nor the second defendant ever acknowledged the debt on or before 10.5.2002 and unless there is any specific acknowledgement of debt acknowledging the liability and promising to pay the same, the period of limitation will not extend after 10.5.2002 and that the notice dated 25.6.2002, cannot be treated as an acknowledgement of debt. Further, there is no acknowledgement of debt in the reply notice dated 28.8.2003 was made and hence the suit is clearly barred by limitation. It is also alleged that the second defendant is an unnecessary party to the suit and he cannot be made liable to pay the suit claim and there is no cause of action against him. 7. After analysing the evidence on record, the learned trial Judge, namely Fast Track Court Judge, Vellore, has decreed the Suit as prayed for with cost. Aggrieved against the Judgment, the defendant has filed this Appeal. 8. On a careful perusal of the plaint and the written statements filed by the following points have arisen in this Appeal: 1. Whether Ex.A2 can be treated as an acknowledgement of time barred debt ? 2. Whether an Advocate can be termed to be an agent for his client for the purposes specified under section 25(3) of the Indian Contract Act ? 3. Whether the Suit is in time ? And 4. To what relief the appellant is entitled to? 9. POINTS 1 to 4: Ex. A1-Promissory Note was executed by the first defendant in favour of the plaintiff on 10.5.1999 for receipt of Rs.2,50,000/-from the plaintiff. It is the contention of the defendants that the Suit claim has been miserably time barred, since the suit pro note is dated 10.5.1999 and the suit should have been filed on or before 10.5.2002, however the suit has been filed beyond that date i.e. on 15.9.2003 and hence the suit is time barred. The plaintiff takes advantage of the contents of the notice sent by the Advocate/ second defendant, on behalf of his client first defendant, in which he has admitted the debt and undertook to repay the debt within two or three years. 10. The plaintiff takes advantage of the contents of the notice sent by the Advocate/ second defendant, on behalf of his client first defendant, in which he has admitted the debt and undertook to repay the debt within two or three years. 10. The arguments of the learned counsel appearing on either side is revolving around only these points and the Court is called upon to record the finding whether an Advocate can act as an Agent on behalf of his client to do any act as per the provisions viz. section 25(3) of the Indian Contract Act. 11. Ex.A2 is a Notice dated 25.6.2002, issued by P.W.2, an Advocate on behalf of his client first defendant to the plaintiff and others being Brass of Police, namely Superintendent of Police, Sathuvachari, Vellore, Deputy Superintendent of Police, District Crime Branch, Sathuvachari, Crime Branch, BHEL, Ranipet, and General manager, BHEL, Ranipet, stating that on 22.6.2002, at about 3 P.M., the plaintiff with his henchmen came and threatened the first defendant, abused him hurling unparliamentary words and also conducted a 'Gangaroo Court' (Katta Panchayat), for the purpose of collecting the pro note amount. The next paragraph of the notice reads to the effect that the first defendant requires a period of two or three years for repayment of pro note amount and if they failed to repay the amount, the plaintiff can file a Civil Suit against his client. Thereafter, the first defendant issued another notice in Ex.A3, dated 23.8.2003, through the same Lawyer/P.W.2 to the plaintiff, stating that though the first defendant has paid the entire amount under the pro-note after due endorsement and that on 21.8.8.2003 at 10.00 a.m. plaintiff and others came to the house of the first defendant, abused him in vulgar language and also threatened him that if they have not discharged the pro note amount, they have to reap the consequences and pro note had to be discharged with due endorsement. 12. 12. Mr.T.R.Rajaraman, learned counsel appearing for the appellant would contend that in Ex.A5, the factum of issuance of Ex.A2-Notice was not referred to and at any rate, an Advocate could not be treated to be the Agent of his client for the purposes of Section 25(3) of the Contract Act, that even Exs.A2, A5 would show that only upon instructions, notices were issued and the Advocate had no authority to acknowledge the time barred debt and such acknowledgement if any made in Ex.A2-Notice, is not sustainable in the eye of law. 13. Per contra, Mr.N.Damodaran, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent/plaintiff would contend that one Mr.B.Annamalai, Advocate of Vellore Bar Association who issued Notices Exs.A2, A3 and A5, on behalf of the defendants who also conducted the case before the trial Court for them had been examined as P.W.2 on the side of the plaintiff, who would come out with true state of affairs that he issued notice only after getting prior instructions from his client namely the first defendant and that there is denial of Ex.A2 notice in the written statement; that an Advocate shall be an Agent for his client and in this regard, he can be treated to be an agent for his client for all practical purposes of section 25(3) of the Indian Contract Act and the acknowledgement contained in Ex.A2 would save the limitation and that the Suit is well within time. 14. At this stage, it is profitable to extract Section 25(3) of the Indian Contract Act: "25. An agreement made without consideration is void, unless--