JUDGMENT : This is a suit for money claim valued at Rs. 46,57,024/-. 2. Plaint case in brief is that at all material times the plaintiff company has been and is still carrying on non-Banking business and is a Non-Banking Financial Company registered with Reserve Bank of India. 3. The defendant company is also carrying on various types of commercial business. 4. The defendant company approached the plaintiff company for grant of financial assistance of a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- as Inter corporate Deposit on compound interest at the rate of 15% per annum compoundable on every 90 days. 5. Analysing the credibility of the defendant company the plaintiff company lent and advanced a sum of Rs. 25,00,000/- through Cheque No. 784804 dated 27th May 1998 which was encashed by the defendant company on 08.6.1998. 6. The defendant duly acknowledged the receipt of the said sum of money being Rs.25,00,000.00 (Rupees twenty five lakhs only) as loan vide letter dated 27.5.1998 issued by the plaintiff company and accepted by the defendant company, showing said the amount and rate of interest duly accepted by the defendant company. 7. From time to time the plaintiff company in terms of the said agreement used to issue interest bill as and when the same was due and payable by the defendant company to the plaintiff company and the defendant used to acknowledge the same by endorsing on the respective bills and also used to pay the same. 8. The defendant duly confirmed the dues of the plaintiff company by endorsing their confirmation on the letter of confirmation of accounts issued by the plaintiff company showing said rate of interest and payment of the same, being accepted by the defendant company. 9. After sometimes passed, the repayment of the loan by defendant company became irregular and the principal balance due as on 19th October 2001 was 24,00,000.00 (Rupees Twenty four lakhs only) as per the statement of accounts maintained by the plaintiff company and the defendant company stopped paying regular and agreed amount of interest and repayment of the said loan on some or other pretext. 10. The plaintiff states that after repeated requests from the plaintiff company the defendant again started making payment of the dues of the plaintiff company, the first of which was paid on 28th January 2006 for Rs.1,00,000.00 (Rupees one lakh only). 11. 10. The plaintiff states that after repeated requests from the plaintiff company the defendant again started making payment of the dues of the plaintiff company, the first of which was paid on 28th January 2006 for Rs.1,00,000.00 (Rupees one lakh only). 11. So, the plaintiff company sent a legal notice dated 28th of January 2011 to the defendant company demanding the said dues but the defendant company failed and neglected to pay to the plaintiff company its legitimate dues. 12. Hence, the suit for a money decree of Rs. 46,57,024/- with cost. 13. The defendant contested the suit by filing written statement denying all material particulars made in the plaint and contended inter-alia, that the plaintiff had no legitimate or legal claim against the defendant. Claim of the plaintiff is also barred by law of limitation. Accordingly, the defendant company prayed for dismissal of the suit with costs. 14. On the above pleadings following issues have been framed to resolve the dispute between the parties:- 1. Whether the plaintiff lent and advanced a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- to the defendant as inter corporate deposit? 2. Whether any interest was payable by the defendant to the plaintiff on account of this inter corporate deposit? If so, at what rate? 3. Is the claim of the plaintiff barred by limitation? 4. To what relief or reliefs is the plaintiff entitled to? Issue no. 1 15. It is submitted on behalf of the plaintiff, the plaintiff company carries on business of granting financial assistance to entities and registered with Reserve Bank of India as a Non-Banking Financial Company as depicted from Certificate of Registration with RBI Ext-G. The defendant company approached for grant of financial assistance of a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- as Inter corporate Deposit on compound interest at the rate of 15% per annum compoundable on every 90 days at the office of the plaintiff company and the plaintiff company lent and advanced a sum of Rs. 25,00,000/- through Cheque No. 784804 dated 27th May, 1998 which was encashed by the defendant company on 08.6.1998 being Inter corporate Deposit on compound interest basis at the rate of 15% per annum compoundable on every 90 days which was duly acknowledged by the defendant on receipt of the sum of Rs. 25,00,000/- through Cheque No. 784804 dated 27th May, 1998 which was encashed by the defendant company on 08.6.1998 being Inter corporate Deposit on compound interest basis at the rate of 15% per annum compoundable on every 90 days which was duly acknowledged by the defendant on receipt of the sum of Rs. 25,00,000.00 (Rupees twenty five lakhs only) which is reflected from letter dated 27.5.1998 Exbt.- ‘A’; interest bill dated 03.12.1998 Exbt.- ‘B’; interest bill dated 05.3.1999 Exbt.- ‘B1’; and the confirmation certificate of the statement of account for the period 27.5.1998 to 31.3.1999 and further confirmation of account for the period 01.4.1998 to 31.3.1999 dated 01.4.1999 by the Commercial Executive of the defendant company Exbt.- ‘C’ and Exbt.- ‘D’ respectively. 16. Learned Advocate for the plaintiff adverting to averment in paragraph 8 of the written statement with reference to paragraph 3 of the plaint, submitted that the defendant company has restricted its denial only in respect of the compound interest @ 15% per annum compoundable every 90 days as payable to the plaintiff on the said Inter corporate deposit without any specific denial of the categorical averment made in paragraph 3 of the plaint and this fact has been well proved on evidence by Mr. Abhoy Gandhi Constituted Attorney of the plaintiff company to the effect that the defendant company was given loan of Rs. 25,00,000/- an Inter corporate deposit bearing interest @ 15% payable every 90 days. 17. Thus, the issue no. 1 is decided in the affirmative in favour of the plaintiff. Issue no. 2 18. Mr. Anhoy Gandhi witness for the plaintiff has proved the letter dated 27.5.1998 tendered as Exbt.-‘A’ and the defendant had accepted the financial assistance with the conditions mentioned in the letter dated 27.5.1998 and the defendant made payment and the interest to the plaintiff every three months for four to five times. 19. It is also stated on oath that the defendant company used to deduct TDS in the said interest levied @ 15% on the loan amount of Rs. 25,00,000/- and TDS certificates were also issued to the plaintiff. The bill dated 03.12.1998 proved as Exbt.-‘B’ shows that an interest bill was raised by the plaintiff to the defendant company claiming 90 days interest duly received by the defendant company in the usual course of business. Another bill for interest dated 05.3.1999 shows interest @ 15% of Rs. 25,00,000/- and TDS certificates were also issued to the plaintiff. The bill dated 03.12.1998 proved as Exbt.-‘B’ shows that an interest bill was raised by the plaintiff to the defendant company claiming 90 days interest duly received by the defendant company in the usual course of business. Another bill for interest dated 05.3.1999 shows interest @ 15% of Rs. 25,00,000/- from 05.12.1998 to 04.3.1999 amounting to Rs. 92,466/- was paid to the plaintiff company by the defendant company. Such fact is well proved from the statement of account from 27.5.1998 to 31.3.1999 which was confirmed and certified by the Commercial Executive of the defendant company as reflected from Exbt.-‘C’ and so also from the confirmation of account dated 01.4.1999 Exbt.-‘D’. There is no denial to the said fact suggested during cross-examination of Mr. Abhay Ghosh by the defendant. Therefore, interest payable on the loan amount of Rs. 25,00,000/- an Inter corporate deposit was @ 15 % per annum. 20. Thus, I hold the issue no. 2 in the affirmative in favour of the plaintiff. Issue no. 3 21. On behalf of the plaintiff company, it is submitted that the repayment of the loan by the defendant became irregular and the principal balance due as on 19th October, 2001 was 24,00,000/- only, as depicted from the statement on account maintained by the plaintiff company and the defendant company again started making payment of dues to the plaintiff company, the first of which was paid on 28th January, 2006 for Rs. 1,00,000/- and further paid a sum of Rs. 3,00,000/- for the financial year 2005-06 and lastly, paid a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- only on 04.2.2008 thereby accepting and confirming the claim of the plaintiff. The plaintiff has given tabular representation of the total amount of Rs. 4,65,764/- after calculation of the interest together with principal amount lent and advance by the plaintiff company to the defendant in paragraph 11 of the plaint. In reference to the said categorical statement in paragraph 7 to paragraph 11 of the plaint, the defendant has contended that claim of the plaintiff is barred by limitation as the plaintiff has failed to disclose any payment between 19th October, 2001 and 28th January, 2006 i.e. within three years from the said date. 22. It is further contended that there was no promise by the defendant in writing after 19th October, 2001 signed by the defendant. 22. It is further contended that there was no promise by the defendant in writing after 19th October, 2001 signed by the defendant. It is stated in paragraph 12 of the written statement that in and around January, 2006, the plaintiff agreed to accept a sum of Rs. 24,00,000/- in full and final settlement and its claim under the said Inter corporate deposit and the said amount was paid by the defendant to the plaintiff in instalment between 28th January, 2006 and 4th February, 2008 and the plaintiff has accepted the said payment in terms of the said statement without any protest and so the claim stood discharged in full satisfaction. 23. It is submitted on behalf of the defendant that as per provision of Article 19 of the Limitation Act, three years limitation is provided for claim of money. It is also pointed out that there was no interest bill raised by the plaintiff for the period subsequent to 4th March, 1999 over the amount so lent and advanced on 27.5.1998. So, the suit is barred by limitation as the limitation ends on 27.5.2001 in absence of any balance confirmation by the defendant. 24. The plaint was admittedly presented on 10.2.2011 before the learned Master and as per averment made in paragraph 10 of the plaint defendant company lastly paid a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- only on 04.2.2008 so if the claim of the plaintiff company is construed as accepting and confirming as claim on 04.2.2008 then also, the suit having been filed on 10.2.2011 is beyond the period of three years ergo, the suit is barred by limitation. 25. Thus, this issue is decided in the affirmative in favour of the defendant. Issue no. 4 26. Evidence of Mr. Abhay Gandhi a witness for the plaintiff company reveals that as per request of the defendant company four years moratorium for repayment of the loan was granted by the plaintiff company. The witness pointed out that moratorium period of four years were given to make payment along with the interest of 15% per annum clarifying that the interest for the moratorium period would be charged and paid after completing the payment of Rs. 24,00,000/-. But save and except the oral testimony of Mr. Gandhi, there is nothing in writing to substantiate the said fact. 24,00,000/-. But save and except the oral testimony of Mr. Gandhi, there is nothing in writing to substantiate the said fact. The plaintiff is undoubtedly a limited company doing non-banking business lending money and providing loans to the borrowers. Mr. Gandhi works as Accounts Officer of the plaintiff company. It is expected that such discussion even on verbal term is required to be reduced in writing of the minutes of the company. A letter tendered as Exhibit-E under objection by the defendant is a document in writing about the four years moratorium for repayment of loan but the same is beyond the pleading. It is submitted on behalf of the plaintiff that the defendant made payment from 2005 and continued to make payment till 2008 in instalment of about Rs. 1,00,000/-or Rs. 2,00,000/- along with interest in term of said letter Exbt.-E under challenge. 27. It is curious to note that the last balance confirmation of statement of the defendant was in the year 2001, then why the plaintiff kept the transaction without any action. The explanation appears to be that it was because of four years moratorium but such material fact has not been pleaded in the plaint by the plaintiff company. It would not be out the context to take note of the oral testimony of plaintiff’s witness that the plaintiff company has not disclosed and submitted the balance sheet and book of account pertaining to the defendant’s loan in this proceeding. There is no Income Tax return produced before this Court even to show the alleged unpaid loan amount. 28. The plaintiff has claimed the said letter of request Exhibit-E (objected to) as the written agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant regarding moratorium for four years for repayment of loan and that payments were made in terms of the said document, but, there is no whisper of this document in the plaint with regard to the request for moratorium of four years in repayment of the loan. On the other hand, according to the defendant the loan has been repaid with the full and final settlement. 29. Learned Advocate for the defendant has referred to a decision in case of Rajgopal (dead) by Lrs. On the other hand, according to the defendant the loan has been repaid with the full and final settlement. 29. Learned Advocate for the defendant has referred to a decision in case of Rajgopal (dead) by Lrs. v. Kishan Gopal and another reported in (2003) 10 SCC 653 , wherein it has been observed that in absence of specific pleading in the plaint, the Courts are precluded from taking cognizance on mere evidence. 30. Provision under Order VI, Rule 2 provides that every pleading shall contain, and contain only, a statement in a concise form of the material fact on which the party pleading relies for his claim or defence, as the case may be, but not the evidence by which they are proved. 31. On perusal of the plaint this Court finds that there is no statement made in respect of the request for granting moratorium period of four years in the matter of repayment of loan together with interest as per the document Exhibit-E. 32. That apart, I am of the view that the plaintiff being a Public Limited Company has also failed to support such verbal discussion and the arrangement vide minutes of the company. Whether at all Mr. Abhay Gandhi had the authority of the company to sit with the defendant company to settle the matter for repayment, is a question to be answered, because an officer of the plaintiff company without approval by the Board of directors cannot enter such agreement for moratorium for repayment of dues amount and/or to reach settlement on that behalf. 33. Moreover, the Advocate’s letter of demand Exhibit-F does not mention about the said letter of request for moratorium for four years for repayment of loan by the defendant. It would not be out of the context to note that Mr. Gandhi has deposed that he signed as a director on the said letter Exhibit-E (objected to) whereas he is an Account Officer of the plaintiff company. Therefore, the document Exbt.-E is not devoid of any suspicion. 34. Learned Advocate for the defendant has argued that the notice to produce document and inspection is dated 22.11.2016 when the witness was already cross-examined and discharged. Therefore, the document Exhibit-E cannot be taken into consideration in support of the case of the plaintiff. 35. Therefore, the document Exbt.-E is not devoid of any suspicion. 34. Learned Advocate for the defendant has argued that the notice to produce document and inspection is dated 22.11.2016 when the witness was already cross-examined and discharged. Therefore, the document Exhibit-E cannot be taken into consideration in support of the case of the plaintiff. 35. Therefore, I am unable to accept the contention of the plaintiff that the case of full and final settlement not having been suggested to the plaintiff witness and for not having adduced any evidence to refute the document Exhibit-E (objected to), the case of the plaintiff be held to be proved. The plaintiff is bound by its own pleadings and, if that be so, it must fail or succeed on its own pleadings. The plaintiff cannot be allowed to travel beyond the scope of its own pleadings. 36. Learned Advocate for the defendant has also relied on a decision of Bondar Singh and others v. Nihal Singh and others reported in (2003) 4 SCC 161 , wherein it has been observed in paragraph 7 that it is settled law that in the absence of a plea, no amount of evidence led in relation thereto can be looked into. 37. Yet, in case of Nandkishore Lalbhai Mehta v. New Era Fabrics Private Limited and others reported in (2015) 9 SCC 755 , it has been held that fresh pleadings and evidence which are in variation to the original pleadings cannot be taken unless the fresh pleadings are incorporated by way of amendment of the pleadings. 38. I am fully in agreement with the submission of learned Advocate for the defendant that it is well settled, that in the absence of pleading, evidence, if any, produced by the parties cannot be considered. It is equally settled that no party should be permitted to travel beyond its pleadings and that all necessary and material facts should be pleaded by the party in support of the case set up by it. The object and purpose of pleading is to enable the adversary party to know the case it has to meet. In order to have a fair trial it is imperative that the party should state the essential material facts so that other party may not be taken by surprise. 39. The object and purpose of pleading is to enable the adversary party to know the case it has to meet. In order to have a fair trial it is imperative that the party should state the essential material facts so that other party may not be taken by surprise. 39. In the context of the above discussion, this Court decides the above issue by holding that the plaintiff is not entitled to decree as prayed for, or to any other relief. 40. In the result, suit fails. 41. Hence, the suit being C.S. No. 21 of 2011 is hereby dismissed on contest against the defendant, however, without any order as to costs. 42. Department and all parties to act on the signed copy of this judgment.