JUDGMENT : Shri D.K. Paliwal, J. 1. is appeal has been filed under Section 96 of C.P.C. being aggrieved with the judgment and decree passed by District Judge, Guna in Civil Original Suit No.7-B/90 on 5.8.94 whereby, the suit filed by the respondent for recovery has been decreed partly. 2. The respondent/plaintiff filed a suit pleading that the respondent/plaintiff is a corporate body having Head Office at Indore and its branch is situated at Ruthiai. The appellant/defendant is the resident of Guna and proprietor of Durga talkies. Appellant/defendant submitted three applications for grant of loan and proposed to pledge gold jewelry. On 16.10.81 the respondent/plaintiff has sanctioned three loans bearing loan account No.86/81 for Rs.16,500/- loan account No.87/81 for an amount of Rs.25,350/- and loan account No 88/81 for Rs.7000/- and thus total Rs.48,850/- were sanctioned. Appellant/defendant has executed a promissory note and pledged 135.500 gram of gold jewelry,(pure weight 127 gram) for account No.86/81,252.500 gram (pure weight 195 gram) for account No.87/81 and 169.100 gram (pure weight 24 gram) in account No.88/81. It is further pleaded that the appellant/defendant has not repaid the amount of loan as well as the interest in the year 1987. The bank asked the appellant/defendant to repay the loan, but the appellant/defendant made a request that the gold jewelry pledged by him should not be auctioned. The appellant/defendant has acknowledged the amount due against him on 6.11.87 and submitted the document to bank on 6.11.87. Rs. 48,304-40 in loan account No.86/81, Rs.74,212-55 in loan account No.87/81 and Rs.20,491-85 in loan account No.88/81 total Rs.1,43,008-80 were due against the appellant/defendant. The respondent/plaintiff has issued a registered notice for repayment of loan and also informed if the loan is not repaid, the pledged jewelry be auctioned. Despite service of notice, appellant/defendant has not repaid any amount. Hence, the respondent/plaintiff issued a notice for auctioning the pledged jewelry on 31.08.88 and the auction proceeding was started. The highest bid was of Rs. 82,100/- but it was not proper, hence again a notice was published on 25.2.89 for auction of pledged gold ornaments and the highest bid was Rs.97,200/-. Prior to final acceptance of the aforesaid amount, the appellant/defendant was informed that if he wants to purchase the gold ornaments for Rs.97,200/- or more, he can do so, but the appellant/defendant has not come forward hence the bid was accepted. Prior to final acceptance of the aforesaid amount, the appellant/defendant was informed that if he wants to purchase the gold ornaments for Rs.97,200/- or more, he can do so, but the appellant/defendant has not come forward hence the bid was accepted. It is further pleaded that on 3.4.89 the total amount of Rs.1,84,272-65 paise was due. Deducting the amount received by auctioning the pledged ornaments Rs.97,200/-in the loan account of the appellant/defendant Rs.1,16,577.00 were due. It is prayed that the appellant/defendant be directed to pay the aforesaid amount along with interest from the date of filing of the suit till realization at the rate of 19.5% per annum. 3. The appellant/defendant in his written statement has admitted that he made an application for grant of loan, but stated that the loan was granted for agricultural purposes. It is denied that the defendant agreed to pay interest at the rate of 19.50% per annum with quarterly rests. It is further denied that the appellant/defendant has pledged the gold ornaments. It is stated that the gold ornaments were handed over as a security of loan. It is denied that the defendant agreed that bank will be entitled to sell the ornaments at any rate. It is pleaded that the plaintiff/respondent has illegally auctioned the gold ornaments on a very low price. It is denied that the appellant/defendant has executed any acknowledgment. It is stated that the suit is time barred. The respondent/plaintiff is not entitled for interest. No cause of action has been arisen on 16.10.81, 6.11.87, 13.1.89 or 9.5.89. It is prayed that suit be dismissed. 4. It is denied that the appellant/defendant has executed any acknowledgment. It is stated that the suit is time barred. The respondent/plaintiff is not entitled for interest. No cause of action has been arisen on 16.10.81, 6.11.87, 13.1.89 or 9.5.89. It is prayed that suit be dismissed. 4. The learned trial Court has framed the following issues:- okn iz'u fu”d”kZ 1- D;k LVsV cSad vkWQ bankSj dh :fB;kbZ 'kk[kk ds izca/kd Jh foey nqXxys] oknh cSad dh vksj ls okni= dks gLrk{kfjr ,oa lR;kfir dj okn izLrqr djus ds fy, vf/kd`r Fks\ gkWaA 2- D;k izfroknh us oknh ls fookfnr _.k 19-50 izfr'kr izfro”kZ =Sekfld varjky C;kt nj ij fy;k Fkk\ vkns'kkuqlkj 3- D;k oknh ds izfroknh ds vkSj fnukad 06-11-1987 dks [kkrk dz0 86@81 esa 48]304-40 iSls] [kkrk dz0 87@81 esa 74]212-55 rFkk [kkrk dz0 88@81 esa 20]491-85 iSls dqy 1]34]008-80 iSls vo'ks”k fudys Fks\ gkWa 4- v & D;k oknh ds izfroknh dh vkSj fnukad 03-04-1989 dks _.k jkf'k 1]83]492-65 iSls Lo.kZ uhykeh gsrq fd;k x;k fufonk O; 780@& :i;s rFkk fnukad 01-04-1989 rd dk C;kt 29]504-35 iSls dqy 2]13]777-00 fudyrs gS\ gkWa c & D;k oknh mDr jkf'k esa] izfroknh ds Lo.kZ vkHkw”k.kksa ds fodz; ls izkIr jkf'k 97]200@& lek;ksftr dh tkus ij izfroknh ls _.k dh vo'ks”k jkf'k 1]16]577@& 19-50 :i;s izfr'kr izfro”kZ dh =Sekfld varjky dh C;kt nj ls ikus dk vf/kdkjh gS\ gkWa] vkns'kkuqlkj 8- D;k izfroknh us fookfnr _.k d`f”k iz;kstu gsrq fy;k Fkk] vr% oknh bl jkf'k ij 13 izfr'kr izfro”kZ dh nj ls vf/kd C;kt ikus dk vf/kdkjh ugha gS\ nks _.k d`f”k _.k Fks vr% C;kt 13 :0 iz0lk0iz0 ls nks _.kksa ij izkIr djus dk gdnkj gS ughaA 9- D;k izfroknh us oknh ds ikl fookfnr _.k isVs 500 xzke 'kq) lksuk izfrHkwfr Lo:i j[kk Fkk\ ughaA vkns'kkuqlkjA 10- D;k fookfnr jkf'k vof/k ckg~; gS\ ughaA 11- v& D;k oknh us izfroknh ds }kjk rhu [kkrksa esa tek fd, x, Lo.kZ dks bdV~Bk dj fodz; djus esa voS/kkfudrk dh gS\ ughaA c & ;fn gkWa rks izHkko\ dksbZ izHkko ughaA 12- v & D;k oknh dks ewy/ku ls vf/kd C;kt izkIr djus vf/kdkjh gS\ oS/kkfud vf/kdkj ugha gSa\ c & ;fn gkWa rks izHkko\ dksbZ izHkko ughaA 13- D;k oknh us izfroknh ds }kjk vyx vyx yksu vkosnu i= izLrqr dj vyx _.k izkIr fd;k Fkk] bl dkj.k yksuksa vkosnuksa dh ,df=r jkf'k ds laca/k esa izLrqr ;g okn pyus ;ksX; ugha gS\ dqla;kstu ugha gSA 14- lgk;rk ,oa O;\ nkok fMdzh fd;kA 5. After scanning the evidence and material the learned trial Court partly decreed the suit. Being aggrieved the appellant/defendant has preferred this appeal. 6. It is submitted that the learned trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence. The findings given by the learned trial Court are perverse. Learned trial Court having found that two loans were for agricultural purpose but still 19.5% per annum interest has wrongly been awarded. Learned trial Court further erred in holding that the suit was within the period of limitation. For the purpose of claiming acknowledgment under Section 20 of the Limitation Act, the acknowledgment must be within limitation and then only it can give a fresh limitation. There is no document on record which could be termed as acknowledgment within the period of limitation. The document Ex-P/13, Ex-P/14 and Ex-P/15 goes to show that the appellant had some outstanding dues. Nowhere, in the documents the appellant has made any promise to pay, hence, the learned trial Court without going through the documents Ex-P/13, Ex-P/14 and Ex-P/15 illegally held that the suit is within time. It is further submitted that the plaintiff/bank failed to take reasonable care while auctioning the gold for an amount of Rs.97,200/-, wheres the market value on the date of auction was Rs.3200/- per 10 grams and it would fetched nearly Rs.1,77,920/-, thus bank has caused a loss to the tune of Rs.80,000/- to the appellant/defendant. Hence, it is prayed that impugned judgment and decree be set aside. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff submitted that the learned trial Court has decreed the suit partly, but wrongly reduced the interest on two accounts. 8. On behalf of the respondent/plaintiff cross-objections under Order 41, Rule 22 of the CPC, 1908 has been filed. It is submitted that appellant/defendant took three loans by pledging ornaments. The appellant failed to repay the loans after several notices being served on the appellant. Even before finally selling the ornaments option was given to the appellant to redeem the pledged articles but this was not done. In such circumstances, there was no alternative left to the respondent/Bank except to sell the pledged ornaments and the same having been done money realized by sale was deposited against said loan. The trial Court partly decreed the suit and has reduced the interest on two accounts and also denied cost. In such circumstances, there was no alternative left to the respondent/Bank except to sell the pledged ornaments and the same having been done money realized by sale was deposited against said loan. The trial Court partly decreed the suit and has reduced the interest on two accounts and also denied cost. The learned trial Court wrongly held that the loan was given for agricultural purposes. There is nothing on record to show that the loan was taken for agricultural purposes. Hence, the finding of the learned trial Court is perverse and the respondent/Bank is entitled to contractual interest. The learned trial Court erred in law in not awarding the cost. Hence prayed that cross-objection be allowed and the suit be decreed and the appeal be dismissed. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant/defendant submitted that the learned trial Court on the basis of the documents rightly held that the loan was granted for agricultural purposes. It is further submitted that the respondent/plaintiff is not entitled to cost. Hence prayed that cross-objection be dismissed and appeal be allowed. 10. I have considered the submission of the counsel and carefully perused the record. 11. It is not disputed that the appellant/defendant has taken three loans vide account No. 86/81, 87/81 and 88/81 of Rs.16,500/-, Rs.25,350/- and Rs.7000/- total Rs.48,850/-. It is also not in dispute that the appellant/defendant has pledged gold ornaments of about 135.500 gram, 252.500 gram and 169.100 gram (pure weight 127 gram), 195 gram and 24 gram). It is also not in dispute that the gold ornaments has been auctioned by the respondent/plaintiff for Rs.97,200/- on 9.5.89. 12. Kishanlal (PW/1) stated that Ramnarayan Sharma has filed three applications for grant of loan. The bank has sanctioned Rs.16,500/-, Rs.25,350/- and Rs.7000/- on 16.10.81. He further stated that aforesaid loan was granted and the rate of interest was 19.50% per annum. He further stated that Ram Narayan Sharma has executed a promissory note Ex-P/4 to Ex-P/6 along with delivery note Ex-P/7 to Ex-P/9 and pledge letter Ex-P/10 to Ex-P/12 which bears signature of Ram Narayan Sharma. He further stated that Ramnarayan Sharma has not repaid the loan as agreed. 13. Ram Narayan Sharma (DW/1) says that loan of Rs.48,850/- on his three applications was sanctioned. He is having agricultural land. He has deposited 500.50 gram of gold as a security of the loan. He further stated that Ramnarayan Sharma has not repaid the loan as agreed. 13. Ram Narayan Sharma (DW/1) says that loan of Rs.48,850/- on his three applications was sanctioned. He is having agricultural land. He has deposited 500.50 gram of gold as a security of the loan. He further stated that bank manager has told him the rate of interest as 13%. He had not agreed that the amount of interest after three months would be converted into principal amount. He has not acknowledged the dues against him. He further stated that the bank has not informed him regarding auction of his gold ornaments. He has taken a loan of Rs.48,850/- against this bank has recovered Rs.97,200/- by auctioning his gold. Hence nothing is due against him. 14. Ex-P/1, EX-P/2 and Ex-P/3 are the applications filed on behalf of the appellant/defendant for grant of loan. In all the three applications in the column of purpose of advance the word “urgent need” is mentioned and in Ex-P/2 in remark column the word “agriculture purpose” for construction of well and in Ex-P/3 in remark column the word for “agriculture purpose” is mentioned. 15. Kishanlal (PW/1) denied that the loan was demanded for the agriculture purposes. He admitted in para 4 that in Ex-P/2 and Ex-P/3 the purpose of loan is agriculture and construction of well is mentioned. 16. In the light of the statement of Kishanlal in para 4 and in the light of Ex-P/2 and Ex-P/3 it is clear that the loan with regard to account No.87/81 and 88/81 Rs.25,350/- and Rs.7000/- were given for construction of well and agriculture purposes. However, the loan of account no.86/81 of Rs.16,500/- was given for the urgent need. 17. As regard interest, Kishanlal (PW/1) has stated that the loan was sanctioned with a interest at the rate of 19.5% per annum while Ram Narayan Sharma (DW/1) says that he was told that the interest was at the rate of 13% per annum. As found above the loan of account No.86/81 of Rs.16,500/- was given for personal need and loan of account No.87/81 of Rs.25,350/- and of account No.88/81 of Rs.7000/- was given for construction of well and agriculture purposes. 18. Kishanlal (PW/1) categorically admitted in para 4 that the rate of interest of loan for agriculture purposes was 13% per annum. As found above the loan of account No.86/81 of Rs.16,500/- was given for personal need and loan of account No.87/81 of Rs.25,350/- and of account No.88/81 of Rs.7000/- was given for construction of well and agriculture purposes. 18. Kishanlal (PW/1) categorically admitted in para 4 that the rate of interest of loan for agriculture purposes was 13% per annum. Thus the statement of Ram Narayan Sharma (DW/1) is partly corroborated by the statement of Kishanlal (PW/1). 19. From the statement of Kishanlal (PW/1) and Ram Narayan Sharma (DW/1) it is found that the rate of interest in loan of loan account No.86/81 was 19.5% per annum while interest on loan of loan account No.87/81 and loan of loan account No.88/81 was Rs.13% per annum with quarterly rest. 20. As regard the submission of the learned counsel for the appellant that the respondent/plaintiff has auctioned the gold ornaments only for Rs.97,200/- while as per the prevailing rate on the date of auction the total value of the gold ornaments was 1,77,920/-Shivkumar Gupta (PW/2) has categorically stated that on 31.08.88 a notice for auction of gold ornaments was published in daily newspaper Nai Duniya which is Ex-P/16 and auction proceedings were done on 8.9.88. The highest bid was for Rs.82,100/-, but this amount was not reasonable, hence, the auction was not made final. He further stated that on 25.02.89 again notice for auction was published which is Ex-P/18 and the highest bid was of Shri Ramdayal Nagar of Rs.97,200/-. He further stated that the information regarding auction was given to defendant on 11.4.89 vide Ex-P/20 which was received by defendant on 13.4.89. The defendant has written a letter Ex-P/22. Thereafter on 1.5.89 he wrote a letter to defendant vide Ex-P/23 that if he wants to deposit the amount or to pay more than Rs. 97,200/- he can do so otherwise auction should be made final, but defendant has not informed, hence, the auction was finalized on 9.5.89. 21. Ram Narayan Sharma (DW/1) has stated that bank has never informed regarding auction of ornaments. If the ornaments were auctioned at Guna reasonable amount would have been fetched. 22. On perusal of Ex-P/16, it is evident that the notice is published on 31.08.88 in the Daily Newspaper Nai Duniya for sale of gold ornaments on 8.9.88. Ex-P/17 reveals that highest bid was of Rs.82,100/-. In the auction proceeding various persons have participated. If the ornaments were auctioned at Guna reasonable amount would have been fetched. 22. On perusal of Ex-P/16, it is evident that the notice is published on 31.08.88 in the Daily Newspaper Nai Duniya for sale of gold ornaments on 8.9.88. Ex-P/17 reveals that highest bid was of Rs.82,100/-. In the auction proceeding various persons have participated. Ex-P/18 reveals that another notice was published on 25.02.89 in Nai Duniya for auction of gold ornaments. Ex-P/19 reveals that highest bid was of Shri Ramdayal Nagar for Rs.97,200/-. Ex-P/20 is the notice given on 6.2.88 to Ram Narayan Sharma by which defendant was informed regarding the auction of the gold ornaments. Ex-P/22 is the letter written by the appellant/defendant to the bank in response of letter dated 11.04.88. Ex-P/22 reveals that the appellant/defendant informed the bank that the value of his ornaments Rs.97,200/- is low. It is prayed that the ornaments be sold in the Indore market. Ex-P/23 is sent by the bank to the appellant/defendant in response to his letter Ex-P/22 dated 15.4.89 that the gold ornaments can be sold to him if he is agree to give more than Rs.97,200/ the bank is ready to give the ornaments to him. The defendant was asked to contact the bank otherwise the ornaments shall be sold. 23. Shiv Kumar Gupta (PW/2) categorically stated that even after the appellant/defendant was informed vide letter Ex-P/23, the appellant/defendant has not contacted. Considering that the notice was published for auction of gold ornaments in a daily newspaper Nai Duniya, the appellant/defendant was also informed. In first auction on 8.9.88 only Rs.82,100/- was the highest bid which was not reasonable. Hence, the auction was not finalized. Thereafter again a notice was published for auction and the highest bid on 6.4.89 was Rs.97,200/- and prior to accept the highest bid of Rs.97,200/- finally the defendant was duly intimated and was also informed that if he wants to purchase the gold ornaments for more than Rs.97,200/- he can do so the appellant/defendant has not contacted the Bank the submission of the learned counsel that gold ornaments were sold at a very low price has no substance. 24. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the suit was barred by time as the loan was granted on 16.10.81 while the suit was filed on 3.9.90 beyond the limitation of three years. 25. 24. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the suit was barred by time as the loan was granted on 16.10.81 while the suit was filed on 3.9.90 beyond the limitation of three years. 25. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the appellant/defendant has executed the document Ex- P/13, Ex-P/14 and Ex-P/15 for confirming the time barred dues on 6.11.87, hence the suit is within limitation. 26. Shivkumar Gupta (PW/2) has stated that he contacted Ram Narayan Sharma and his son who is also an officer in his bank for the repayment of loan amount. Ramnarayan requested some time to repay the loan and also requested to some rebate on interest. He further stated that on 6.11.87 he got executed Ex-P/13, Ex-P/14 and Ex-P/15 for payment of time barred loan which were executed by defendant in his presence which is signed and marked as A to A. 27. Ram Narayan Sharma (DW/1) has admitted his signature though denied that he has signed the letter on 6.11.87, but in para 6 of his cross-examination has categorically admitted his signature on Ex-P/13, Ex-P/14 and Ex-P/15. Thus the document Ex-P/13, Ex-P/14 and Ex- P/15 has been executed and signed by the appellant/defendant. Though Ram Narayan has stated that he is illiterate and only sign in English, but in para 8 categorically admitted that he did middle in the year 1947. He is also able to read English. Thus, it cannot be said that the document Ex-P/13, Ex-P/14 and Ex-P/15 has been signed by Ram Narayan Sharma without reading the documents. 28. Ex-P/13 reveals that the defendant has acknowledged that Rs. 74,212.55 due on 28.9.87 against him and he also promised to pay the same. Ex-P/14 reveals that Rs. 48,304.40 and Ex-P/15 reveals that Rs.20491.85 were due on 28.9.87. By Ex-P/13, Ex-P/14 and Ex-P/15 the appellant/defendant also agreed to pay interest at the rate of 19.5% with quarterly rest. 29. Learned counsel submitted that Ex-P/13, Ex-P/14 and Ex-P/15 are not signed by the surety. It is pertinent to mention that the appellant/defendant has pledged the gold ornaments for security of the loan, hence, no question is arises with regard to surety signature. 30. 29. Learned counsel submitted that Ex-P/13, Ex-P/14 and Ex-P/15 are not signed by the surety. It is pertinent to mention that the appellant/defendant has pledged the gold ornaments for security of the loan, hence, no question is arises with regard to surety signature. 30. In view of the aforesaid discussion, in the opinion of this Court, the learned trial Court rightly held that the appellant/defendant is liable to pay Rs.16,500/- and the interest at the rate of 19.50% per annum with quarterly rest from 16.10.81 till payment and Rs.25,350/- and Rs.7000/- with interest at the rate of 13% per annum with quarterly rest from 16.10.81 till payment. The appeal preferred by the appellant/defendant is devoid of any merit. Considering that the respondent/defendant’s suit has been partly decreed by the learned trial Court, the respondent/plaintiff was entitled to get the cost of the suit, hence the cross-objections deserves to be allowed. Consequently, the appeal preferred by the appellant/defendant is dismissed. The decree passed by the learned trial Court with regard to payment of principal and interest is hereby affirmed. The appellant/defendant is directed to pay the amount as directed by the trial court and also interest as directed till realization. The cross-objection preferred by the respondent/plaintiff is allowed and the direction of the trial Court that if the amount is paid within six months by the defendant, the plaintiff would not be entitled for cost is set aside. It is directed that the appellant/defendant shall bear his own costs and the cost of the respondent/plaintiff. Advocate fee as per schedule. Decree be drawn up accordingly.