JUDGMENT : M. DURAISWAMY, J. 1. The above appeal arises against the judgment and decree passed in O.S. No. 99 of 2002 on the file of the Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No. I, Salem originally numbered as O.S. No. 387 of 1996 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Salem). 2. The 1st defendant is the appellant, the 1st respondent was the plaintiff and the respondents 2 & 3 were the defendants 2 & 3. 3. The plaintiff filed the suit in O.S. No. 99 of 2002 to pass a preliminary decree for a sum of Rs. 11,12,666.65 with future interest at 15% per annum, further directing that in default of the defendants paying the said amount, the plaintiff shall be entitled to apply a final decree directing that the mortgage property be sold and the proceeds of sale be paid into Court. 4. According to the plaintiff, the 1st defendant borrowed a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- under Ex.A2 demand promissory note dated 07.07.1983 and a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- under Ex.A3 pronote dated 20.08.1984. Further, it is the case of the plaintiff that under Ex.A4 document dated 21.08.1984, the defendants deposited the Title Deeds of the property belonging to the 2nd defendant. It is the case of the plaintiff that Exs.A2 & A3 pronotes were executed by the 1st defendant. 5. According to the defendants, Exs.A2 & A3 pronotes are not true and genuine. Further, Ex.A4 document is a fabricated document. 6. Before the trial Court, on the side of the plaintiff, one Dhanagopalan was examined as P.W.1 and 11 documents, Exs.A1 to A11, were marked and on the side of the defendants, 1st defendant was examined as D.W.1 and Ex.B1 was marked. 7. The trial Court, after taking into consideration the oral and documentary evidences of both sides, decreed the suit for a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- together with interest and dismissed the suit as against the defendants 2 & 3. While dismissing the suit as against the defendants 2 & 3, the trial Court found that Ex.A4 is not a valid document and that the claim made under Ex.A2 pronote is barred by limitation. Aggrieved over the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, the 1st defendant has filed the above appeal. 8. While dismissing the suit as against the defendants 2 & 3, the trial Court found that Ex.A4 is not a valid document and that the claim made under Ex.A2 pronote is barred by limitation. Aggrieved over the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, the 1st defendant has filed the above appeal. 8. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the claim made under Ex.A3 pronote dated 20.08.1984 is clearly barred by limitation and that the non-examination of the partner of the partnership firm viz. G. Rajasekaran, who had filed the suit, is fatal to the case of the plaintiff. 9. Countering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the trial Court had committed an error in rejecting Ex.A4 document and finding that the claim made under Ex.A2 is barred by limitation. Further, the learned counsel submitted that since the suit has been filed on an equitable mortgage the period of limitation is 12 years and therefore, the finding of the trial Court is not correct. 10. On a careful consideration of the materials available on record and the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, the following points arise for consideration in this appeal:- 1. Whether the suit filed by the plaintiff claiming a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- under Ex.A3 pronote dated 20.08.1984 is barred by limitation? 2. Whether the non-examination of the person, who has filed the suit on the side of the plaintiff, is fatal to the case of the plaintiff? 11. It is not in dispute that the plaintiff has filed the suit in O.S. No. 99 of 2002 (originally numbered as O.S. No. 387 of 1996) on 16.08.1996. The plaintiff has filed the suit under Exs.A2 to A4 documents stating that the 1st defendant had borrowed a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- under Ex.A2 dated 07.07.1983 and a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- under Ex.A3 dated 20.08.1984. Further, the plaintiff contended that under Ex.A4 document dated 21.08.1984, the defendants deposited the Title Deeds of the property belonging to the 2nd defendant. The trial Court, taking into consideration the oral and documentary evidences of both sides, rejected Ex.A4 document finding that the document was not registered and therefore, it is an invalid document. 1,00,000/- under Ex.A3 dated 20.08.1984. Further, the plaintiff contended that under Ex.A4 document dated 21.08.1984, the defendants deposited the Title Deeds of the property belonging to the 2nd defendant. The trial Court, taking into consideration the oral and documentary evidences of both sides, rejected Ex.A4 document finding that the document was not registered and therefore, it is an invalid document. With regard to the claim made under Ex.A2 pronote dated 07.07.1983, the trial Court dismissed the suit finding that the claim made by the plaintiff is barred by limitation for the reason that the suit was filed on 16.08.1986. 12. Having found that the claim made under Ex.A2 dated 07.07.1983 is barred by limitation, the trial Court adopted different yardstick for the claim made under Ex.A3 pronote dated 20.08.1984. When the suit was filed in the year 1996, when the same yardstick, which was applied by the trial Court for Ex.A2 is applied to Ex.A3 also, the suit is clearly barred by limitation. But the trial Court has erroneously decreed the suit in respect of the claim made under Ex.A3 pronote dated 20.08.1984. When the trial Court has rejected Ex.A4 document dated 21.08.1984 with regard to the deposit of Title Deeds, the claim made by the plaintiff can only be construed as a simple money claim. In such a case, the limitation for filing the case on a pronote is three years. In the case on hand, the suit has been filed after nearly 12 years from the date of execution of Ex.A3 pronote dated 20.08.1984. As against the dismissal of the suit in respect of the claim made under Ex.A2 pronote, the plaintiff has not filed any appeal. The finding with regard to Exs.A2 and A4 has become final. 13. Further, it is pertinent to note that there is not only adverse finding as against the plaintiff, the decree itself is against the plaintiff insofar as the dismissal of the suit for a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- is concerned. In spite of the dismissal of the suit for a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- the plaintiff has not filed any appeal or cross appeal before this Court. In these circumstances, I am of the considered view that the suit filed for a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- under Ex.A3 pronote dated 20.08.1984 is also barred by limitation. 3,00,000/- is concerned. In spite of the dismissal of the suit for a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- the plaintiff has not filed any appeal or cross appeal before this Court. In these circumstances, I am of the considered view that the suit filed for a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- under Ex.A3 pronote dated 20.08.1984 is also barred by limitation. With regard to the non-examination of G. Rajasekaran, who has filed the suit as partner of the plaintiff firm, it is pertinent to note that one Dhanagopalan was examined as P.W.1, who has deposed evidence as partner of the firm. However, in his evidence, he has deposed that the partnership Firm has dissolved long back and the Firm is not in existence. That apart, P.W.1 has not produced the letter of authorization to let in evidence on behalf of the plaintiff. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that the said G. Rajasekaran is very much available now. In spite of the availability of the said partner, who has filed the suit, the non-examination of the partner cannot be accepted. 14. In these circumstances, I am of the considered view that the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court in O.S. No. 99 of 2002 are liable to set aside. Accordingly, the same are set aside. The suit in O.S. No. 99 of 2002 stands dismissed in toto. The appeal stands allowed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous is closed.