JUDGMENT : 1. This is plaintiff's first appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure arising out of judgment and decree passed by the learned 9th Additional District Judge (FTC), Raipur (C.G.) passed on 16.08.2007 in Civil Suit No. 6-B of 2007 filed by the plaintiff wherein suit filed by the plaintiff for recovery of Rs. 1,25,000/- has been dismissed. 2. For convenience plaintiff and defendant are termed as it exists before the trial Court. 3. The plaintiff has filed civil suit for recovery of Rs. 95,000/-along with interest of Rs. 24,475/-@ 1% per hundred on Rs. 75000/-from 01.02.2003 to 15.12.2005 and on Rs. 20,000/-from 21.06.2004 to 24.12.2005. 4. The brief facts as reflected from the record are that the defendant sought some financial assistance from plaintiff to the tune of Rs. 75,000/-, the said amount was given to him through Cheques No. 515874 dated 05.07.2001, 562885 dated 27.11.2001 and 562885 dated 12.12.2001 for a sum of Rs. 25000/-each and the defendant agreed to pay interest of Rs. 1.25%, 1.5% and 1.625% respectively to the amounts. The defendant for the security of the said amount executed 3 promissory notes valued at Rs. 25,000/-each. The defendant has paid interest upto 31.01.2003, thereafter, he has not paid the interest. The defendant has again executed acknowledgement for the money borrowed by him through promissory note dated 21.06.2004. The defendant again sought Rs. 20,000/-as cash and also promised that he will repay the amount Rs. 95,000/-. Since the defendant was well known to the plaintiff therefore, he has paid an amount of Rs. 20,000/-in cash and accordingly has executed promissory note in favour of the plaintiff. Since, the defendant has not paid the amount, therefore, through his counsel plaintiff has served notice dated 22.10.2005 asking him to pay the principal amount of Rs. 95,000/-along with interest and also Rs. 1000/-for cost of notice within a week. The notice was issued on his address but his family members refused to take notice on the pretext that the defendant is not available, therefore, it is deemed to be served on 05.11.2005. The defendant has not complied with the notice, therefore, plaintiff has filed suit for recovery of the money as stated in foregoing paragraphs. 5. The defendant has filed written statement contending that Devilal Sharma is an agent who provides facilities of providing money to businessmen. He has admitted that he has taken Rs. The defendant has not complied with the notice, therefore, plaintiff has filed suit for recovery of the money as stated in foregoing paragraphs. 5. The defendant has filed written statement contending that Devilal Sharma is an agent who provides facilities of providing money to businessmen. He has admitted that he has taken Rs. 25,000/-thrice total Rs. 75,000/-on 05.07.2001, 27.11.2001 and 13.12.2001. It is denied by the defendant that he has executed three demand promissory demand notes as security. In fact the plaintiff was doing money laundering business. As per the plaintiff he cannot execute bond of Rs. 25000/-therefore, he had to give one promissory note for every Rs. 10,000/-to avoid income tax problem, as such, he had given seven promissory notes which were left blank and no amount was mentioned in the promissory note. The promissory notes were given on 05.07.2001, 27.11.2001 and 12.12.2001. The plaintiff has assured to the defendant that he will not fill up the amount exceeding Rs. 75000/-in the promissory note. It is also contended by the defendant that he has paid Rs. 19083/-till 31.10.2003 towards repayment of principal amount and not towards interest. The allegations made in the plaint were denied in toto except the facts which have specifically been admitted by him. It is also contended by the defendant that he has neither executed any promissory notes on 21.06.2004 nor acknowledged or confirmed the earlier dues. The plaintiff has malafidely fabricated in the promissory note and produced the same which is not acceptable to him. The suit filed by the plaintiff is time barred by five years. He has misused the promissory notes to fall the case within limitation as provided in the Limitation Act. It is also denied that defendant has promised to pay Rs. 95000/-after sale of property, in fact Rs. 19083/-was principal amount, as such no question arises for returning the same with interest. It has also been contended that the plaintiff has fabricated the false document and shown excess amount of Rs. 1,24,475/-which is false, therefore, the suit deserves to be dismissed. 6. It has also been additionally pleaded that plaintiff was running money laundering business but has not produced any license or accounts, therefore, he has violated procedure of Money Laundering Act, as such, the suit is liable to be dismissed. 7. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, learned trial Court framed as many as 9 issues. 6. It has also been additionally pleaded that plaintiff was running money laundering business but has not produced any license or accounts, therefore, he has violated procedure of Money Laundering Act, as such, the suit is liable to be dismissed. 7. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, learned trial Court framed as many as 9 issues. 8. To substantiate his case the plaintiff examined himself (PW/1) and exhibited documents promissory notes from Ex.P/1 to P/7, Notice Ex.P/8, Envelop Ex.P/9, Acknowledgement Card Ex.P/10, Memo dated 30.04.2007 Ex.P/11 and Syllabus of Forensic Lab Ex.D/12. The defendant examined himself (DW/1) and hand writing expert Dr. Sunanda Dhenge(DW/2), exhibited documents opinion report of handwriting expert Ex.D/1, Notice Ex.D/2, certificate of handwriting expert Ex.D/3 to D/5, contents of Promissory notes (Ex.P/1 to P/7) as Ex.D/1 to D/7. 9. The plaintiff adduced his evidence by way of affidavit as provided under Order 18 Rule 4 of the CPC reiterating the stand taken by him in the plaint. The witness was extensively cross examined by the defendant and in the cross-examination he has stated that he has not given money to any other businessman except the defendant. He has admitted that the promissory notes from Ex.P1 to Ex.P7 have been written by the plaintiff. It has been brought on record before executing the promissory note on 21.06.2004 he used to demand money from defendant in every three months but he refused to give money. When he was specifically asked why he has given amount of Rs. 20000/-in cash, he says that the defendant has told that he has suffered a lot, he is likely to sell his property and will return the amount back, therefore, he has given him Rs. 20,000/-in cash with a hope that the entire amount will be returned to him. He has stated that when he has executed the promissory notes Ex. P5 to Ex.P7 he has not given any money to the defendant but he has written against earlier money. He has denied that he has faced some income tax problem in executing promissory note for Rs. 20,000/-as such he has executed to promissory note of Rs. 10,000/-each. He has also denied that no money is recoverable from the defendant. He has also denied that amount of Rs. 75000/- is time barred debt. 10. He has denied that he has faced some income tax problem in executing promissory note for Rs. 20,000/-as such he has executed to promissory note of Rs. 10,000/-each. He has also denied that no money is recoverable from the defendant. He has also denied that amount of Rs. 75000/- is time barred debt. 10. The defendant examined himself as DW/1 wherein he has reiterated the pleadings made in the written statement and he was cross examined wherein he has admitted that he has taken Rs. 75,000/- as credit from the plaintiff and for security purpose he has put signature on the blank promissory notes. In Ex.P/1 to Ex.P/7 he has put signature. On 05.07.2001 he has given two promissory notes to the plaintiff after putting his signature. The plaintiff has given him loan on three occasions and every time he has taken Rs. 25000/-. He has taken money on interest. He has put signature in Ex.P/1 to P/7 as the plaintiff has told him that amount given above Rs. 20,000/-may create some income tax problem, therefore, he has asked me to put signature on promissory notes valued Rs. 10,000/-and Rs. 15000/-. He has denied that Rs. 25000/- which he has taken on loan has not been repaid by him. He said that he has repaid maximum amount but cannot say how much amount he has paid. Last amount was paid by the defendant on 31.01.2003. He has denied that whatever amount has been paid is towards interest, not principal amount. He has stated that no rate of interest was settled between them. He has admitted that plaintiff has told that he will repay the amount according to his convenience and if he puts his signature on the blank promissory notes then only he will give money. On the date which has been mentioned in Ex.P/1 to P/3 he has taken loan. He has denied that he has taken any money on 21.06.2004. He denied that Ex.P/4 to P/6 are acknowledgement towards earlier dues as security. 11. On 20.04.2007 defendant moved an application for calling the handwriting expert. Learned trial Court allowed the application and fixed the case on 30.04.2007. On 30.04.2007 learned trial Court has given original seven documents to the handwriting expert Dr. Sunanda Dhenge and fixed the case for report of the handwriting expert. The handwriting expert has submitted her report on 24.07.2007. 11. On 20.04.2007 defendant moved an application for calling the handwriting expert. Learned trial Court allowed the application and fixed the case on 30.04.2007. On 30.04.2007 learned trial Court has given original seven documents to the handwriting expert Dr. Sunanda Dhenge and fixed the case for report of the handwriting expert. The handwriting expert has submitted her report on 24.07.2007. On that date, she appeared before the learned trial Court and was examined by the defendant and cross-examined by the plaintiff. Defendant moved an application under Order 26 Rule 10 CPC for examination of handwriting expert to rebut the report submitted by the handwriting expert who was appointed by the application submitted by the defendant by appointing a Government handwriting expert. Learned trial Court fixed case on 26.7.2007 for reply and argument and thereafter the matter was listed on 02.08.2007. Learned trial Court rejected the said application on the count that the handwriting expert has been examined and cross- examined before the learned trial Court, therefore, it is not required to be referred to other handwriting expert and learned trial Court fixed the case for final argument. 12. The report given by the handwriting expert Dr. Sunanda Dhenge, DW/2 is extracted below:- 13. The witness was cross-examined and she has stated as under:- 14. Learned trial Court after appreciating the evidence and material on record while deciding the issue No. 6 whether the suit is time barred' has given a finding in favour of the defendant and also recorded finding while deciding issue No. 7 plaintiff has filed the suit fabricating the promissory notes' in favour of the defendant. These two issues are vital for deciding the case and it goes to the root cause of the case. Learned trial Court has recorded a finding that the plaintiff has not produced any document that defendant has demanded money orally from him and he has sent notice Ex. P8 on 22.10.2005 he has sent the notice after three years from 2001, therefore, it has recorded finding that suit is barred by limitation. The learned trial Court while dismissing the suit has also recorded its finding that Ex.P/1 to P/7 are not credible documents as per the opinion given by the handwriting expert. P8 on 22.10.2005 he has sent the notice after three years from 2001, therefore, it has recorded finding that suit is barred by limitation. The learned trial Court while dismissing the suit has also recorded its finding that Ex.P/1 to P/7 are not credible documents as per the opinion given by the handwriting expert. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 16.08.2007 passed by the learned 9th Additional District Judge ( FTC), Raipur the plaintiff has preferred first appeal under Section 96 of the CPC. 15. Learned Senior Advocate for the plaintiff would submit that the learned trial Court has committed illegality in dismissing the application under Order 26 Rule 10 of the CPC. Learned trial Court has not given opportunity to the defendant to examine the report by other handwriting expert to substantiate his stand which is against the judgment passed by the coordinate Bench of this Court in case of Suresh Kumar Sohan Lal Shukla vs. Ramsharan Sohan Lal Shukla, AIROnline 2019 CHH 1241. He would further submit that plaintiff has clearly deposed before the learned trial Court that he has received the interest amount on 31.03.2003. This fact has been clearly admitted by the defendant in the paragraph 6 of the written statement by pleading that he has paid Rs. 19083/-till 31.01.2003. This fact has been reiterated in the evidence adduced by him before the trial Court. Therefore, the limitation will start from 31.03.2003 and within limitation the suit has been filed, as such, the finding recorded by the trial Court is contrary to Section 19 of the Limitation Act,1963. He would submit that the expert opinion will not overrule the evidence adduced before the trial Court that the defendant has taken the money from him. 16. On the other hand, Learned Senior Advocate for the defendant would submit that the learned trial Court has recorded correct finding that the suit is barred by limitation. No specific contentions were raised before the trial Court with regard to the fact that which loan has been lastly paid and which has not been paid, therefore, very vague plea has been taken, the learned trial Court considering the date of loan has rightly dismissed the suit as barred by limitation. Therefore, the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court does not call for interference by this Court and would pray for dismissal of the appeal. 17. Therefore, the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court does not call for interference by this Court and would pray for dismissal of the appeal. 17. Learned Senior Advocate for the plaintiff would submit that the defendant has admitted in his written statement that he has taken loan from the plaintiff to the tune of Rs. 75,000/- and he has paid Rs. 19083/-till 31.01.2003 which is against principal amount not against interest. This fact has not been denied by the defendant, as such, the finding recorded by the learned trial Court is perverse, contrary to the record as defendant himself has admitted that he has taken Rs. 75000/-as loan from him through cheques and has repaid principal amount of Rs. 19083/- till 31.01.2003, therefore, as per Section 19 of the Limitation Act, effect of payment on account of debt will start from 31.01.2003 for fresh period of limitation. Therefore, opinion given by the handwriting expert does not dislodge the case of the plaintiff. As such, learned trial Court has committed illegality in relying upon the opinion of the handwriting expert. It is well settled principle of law that admission is the best evidence. Therefore, suit is well within limitation. Learned trial Court has committed illegality in not believing Ex.P7 by which amount of Rs. 20000/-has been paid in cash to the defendant on 21.06.2004 and would pray that the appeal be kindly allowed. 18. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and record of the trial Court with utmost satisfaction. 19. Before adverting to the legal submission made by the plaintiff and defendant, it would be expedient for this Court to extract relevant provisions which are applicable for deciding the present controversy raised in the appeal. “Section 18 of The Limitation Act, 1963 18. Effect of acknowledgment in writing.— (1) Where, before the expiration of the prescribed period for a suit of 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 (1 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 avers that the time for payment, delivery, performance or enjoyment has not yet come or is accompanied by a 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. Section 19 of The Limitation Act, 1963 19. Effect of payment on account of debt or of interest on legacy.—Where payment on account of a debt or of interest on a legacy is made before the expiration of the prescribed period by the person liable to pay the debt or legacy or by his agent duly authorised in this behalf, a fresh period of limitation shall be computed from the time when the payment was made: 19. Effect of payment on account of debt or of interest on legacy.— Where payment on account of a debt or of interest on a legacy is made before the expiration of the prescribed period by the person liable to pay the debt or legacy or by his agent duly authorised in this behalf, a fresh period of limitation shall be computed from the time when the payment was made\: "Provided that, save in the case of payment of interest made before the 1st day of January, 1928, an acknowledgment of the payment appears in the handwriting of, or in a writing signed by, the person making the payment. Provided that, save in the case of payment of interest made before the 1st day of January, 1928, an acknowledgment of the payment appears in the handwriting of, or in a writing signed by, the person making the payment." Explanation.— (a) where mortgaged land is in the possession of the mortgagee, the receipt of the rent or produce of such land shall be deemed to be a payment; (a) where mortgaged land is in the possession of the mortgagee, the receipt of the rent or produce of such land shall be deemed to be a payment;" (b) “debt” does not include money payable under a decree or order of a court. (b) “debt” does not include money payable under a decree or order of a court." 20. From bare perusal of Section 19 of the Limitation Act it is quite vivid that if any amount on account of debt or interest on legacy is made before the expiration of the prescribed period by the person liable to pay the debt or legacy or by his agent duly authorised in this behalf, a fresh period of limitation shall be computed from the time when the payment was made. 21. Section 19 of the Limitation Act,1908 which is similar to Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963 has come up for consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Lakshmiratan Cotton Mills Co. vs Aluminium Corporation of India, AIR 1971 SC 1482 wherein Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:- “10. Sec. 19(1) of the Limitation Act, 1908 provides that where, before the expiration of the period prescribed for a suit in respect of any property or right, an acknowledgement 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, a fresh period of limitation shall be computed from the time when the acknowledgement was so signed. The expression 'signed' here means not only signed personally by such a party, but also by an agent duly authorised in that behalf. The expression 'signed' here means not only signed personally by such a party, but also by an agent duly authorised in that behalf. Explanation 1 to the section then provides that an acknowledgement would be sufficient though it omits to specify the exact nature of the property or right, or avers that the time for payment has not yet ,come, or is accompanied by a refusal to pay or is coupled with a claim to a set-off, or is addressed to a person other than the person entitled to the property or right. The new Act of 1963 contains in S. 18 substantially similar provisions.” 22. Section 19 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is similar to Section 20 of Limitation Act, 1908 Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Jiwanlal Achariya vs. Rameshwarlal Agarwalla, (1967) AIR SC 1118 has held as under:- “10. In the present case the cheque was realised and the question is what is the date of payment in the, circumstances of this case for the purpose of s. 20 of the Limitation Act. Section 20 inter alia lays down that where payment on account of debt is made before the expiration of the prescribed period by the person liable to pay the debt, a fresh period of limitation shall be computed from the time when the payment was made. Where therefore the payment is by cheque and is conditional, the mere delivery of the cheque on a particular date does not mean that the payment was made on that date unless the cheque was accepted as unconditional payment. Where the cheque is not accepted as an unconditional payment, it can only be treated as a 'Conditional payment. In such a case the payment for purposes of s. 20 would be the date on which the cheque would be actually payable at the earliest, assuming that it will be honoured. Thus, if in the present case the cheque which was handed over on February 4, 1954 bore the date February 4, 1954 and was honoured when presented to the bank the payment must be held to have -been made on February 4, 1954, namely, the date which the cheque bore. But if the cheque is post dated as in the present case it is obvious that it could not be paid till February 25, 1954 which -was the date it bore. But if the cheque is post dated as in the present case it is obvious that it could not be paid till February 25, 1954 which -was the date it bore. As the payment was conditional it would only be good when the cheque is presented on the date it bears, namely, February 25, 1954 and is honoured. The earliest date therefore on which the respondent could have realised the cheque which he had received as conditional payment on February 4, 1954 was the 25th February 1954 if he had presented it on that date and 'it had been honoured. The fact that he presented it later and was then paid is immaterial for it is the earliest date on which the payment could be made that would be the date where the conditional acceptance of a post-dated cheque becomes actual payment when honoured. We are therefore of opinion that as a post-dated cheque 'was given on February 4, 1954 and it was dated February 25, 1954 and as this was not a case of unconditional acceptance, the payment for the purpose of s. 20 of the Limitation Act could only be on February 25, 1954 when the cheque could have been presented .at the earliest for payment. As in the present case the cheque was honoured it must be held that the payment was made on February 25, 1954. It is not in dispute that the proviso to s. 20 is ,complied with in this case, for the cheque itself is an acknowledgment of the payment in the handwriting of the person giving the cheque. We are therefore of opinion that a fresh period of limitation began on February 25, 1954 which was the date of the post-dated cheque which was eventually honoured.” 23. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Sant Lal Mahton vs. Kamala Prasad, (1951) AIR SC 477 has held as under:- “7. For determination of this point, it is necessary to turn to the provision of section 20 of the Limitation Act. The section, after it was amended by Act I of 1927, stands as follows :-- 20(1). Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Sant Lal Mahton vs. Kamala Prasad, (1951) AIR SC 477 has held as under:- “7. For determination of this point, it is necessary to turn to the provision of section 20 of the Limitation Act. The section, after it was amended by Act I of 1927, stands as follows :-- 20(1). "Where interest on a debt or legacy is, before the expiration, of the prescribed period, paid as such by the person liable to pay the debt or legacy, or by his agent duly authorized in this behalf, or where part of the principal of a debt is, before the expiration of the prescribed period, paid by the debtor or by his agent duly authorized in this behalf, a fresh period of limitation shall be computed from the time when the payment was made: Provided that, save in the case of a payment of interest made before the 1st day of January, 1928, an acknowledgment of the payment appears in the handwriting of, or in a writ-ing signed by, the person making the payment." 8. Admittedly in the case before us, none of the payments specified above were endorsed on the bond itself and there was no acknowledgment either in the handwriting of, or signed by, the debtors prior to the institution of the suit. What the Subordinate Judge relied upon, is the admission contained in paragraph 15 of the written statement filed on behalf of defendants 1 to 3 in the present suit where these defendants admitted not only that the payments specified in the plaint were actually made on the respective dates but asserted that there were other payments besides these, which reduced the debt still further and for which the plaintiffs' did not give any credit to the defendants. In the opinion of the Subordinate Judge as the written statement was signed by these defendants, it would fulfil all the requirements of a signed acknowledgment as is con-templated by the proviso to section 20. The short point for our consideration is: whether the view taken by the Subordinate Judge is correct ? 9. In the opinion of the Subordinate Judge as the written statement was signed by these defendants, it would fulfil all the requirements of a signed acknowledgment as is con-templated by the proviso to section 20. The short point for our consideration is: whether the view taken by the Subordinate Judge is correct ? 9. It would be clear, we think, from the language of section 20 of the Limitation Act that to attract its operation two conditions are essential: first, the payment must be made within the prescribed period of limitation and secondly, it must be acknowledged by some form of writing either in the handwriting of the payer himself or signed by him. We agree with the Subordinate Judge that it is the payment which really extends the period of limitation under section 20 of the Limitarian Act; but the payment has got to be proved in a particular way and for reasons of policy the legislature insists on a written or signed acknowledgment as. the only proof of payment and excludes oral testimony. Unless, there-fore, there is acknowledgment in the required form, the payment by itself is of no avail. The Subordinate Judge, however, is right in holding that while the. section re-quires that the payment should be made within the period of limitation, it does not require that the acknowledgment should also be made within that period. To interpret the proviso in that way would be to import into it certain words which do not occur there. This is the view taken by almost all the High Courts in India and to us it seems to be a proper view to take(1). 10. But while it is not necessary that the written acknowledgment should be made prior to the expiry of the period of limitation, it is, in our opinion, essential that such acknowledgment, whether made before or after the period of limitation, must be in existence prior to the institution of the suit. Whether a suit is time-barred or not has got to be determined exclusively with reference to the date on which the plaint is filed and the allegations made therein. Whether a suit is time-barred or not has got to be determined exclusively with reference to the date on which the plaint is filed and the allegations made therein. The legislature has expressly declared in section 3 of the Limitation Act that whether defence of limitation be pleaded or not, the court is bound to dismiss a suit which is brought after the period provided therefore in the first schedule to the Limitation Act. If the plaintiff's right of action is apparently barred under the statute of limitation, Order 7, Rule 6, of the Civil Procedure Code makes it his duty to state specifically in the plaint the grounds of exemption allowed by the Limitation Act upon which he relies to exclude its operation; and if the plaintiff has got to allege in his plaint the facts which entitle him, to exemption, obviously these facts must be in existence at or before the time when the plaint is filed; facts which come into existence after the filing of the plaint cannot be called in aid to revive a right of action which was dead at the date of the suit. To claim exemption under section 20 of the Limitation Act the plain-tiff must. be in a position to allege and prove not only that there was payment of interest on a debt or part payment of the principal, but that such payment had been acknowledged in writing in the manner contemplated by that section. The ground of exemption is not complete without this second element, and unless both these elements are proved to exist at the date of the filing of the plaint the suit would be held to be time-barred. In the plaint as it was originally filed in this case, the prayer was only for a mortgage decree in the usual form. After the hearing was closed, the plaintiffs, it seems, were apprehensive that the court might not hold the bond to be properly attested. In these circumstances. they prayed for an amendment of the plaint which was allowed by the court. By the amended plaint the cause of action was stated to arise from the different payments made on different dates as were stated in paragraph 7 of the plaint and at the end of paragraph 7 the following words were added : 11. In these circumstances. they prayed for an amendment of the plaint which was allowed by the court. By the amended plaint the cause of action was stated to arise from the different payments made on different dates as were stated in paragraph 7 of the plaint and at the end of paragraph 7 the following words were added : 11. "The suit is saved from limitation so far as the person-al remedy is concerned and the payments were made by the defendants on different dates as mentioned in Schedule A below." 12. These amendments must be deemed in the eye of law to be a part of the original plaint, and obviously there is neither any averment nor proof that any of these payments was acknowledgment in writing prior to the institution of the suit. This being the position, the suit treated as one for obtaining a money decree against the defendants must be held to be barred by limitation at the date on which it was instituted and the courts below consequently were not justified in giving the plaintiffs a money decree in this suit.” 24. In view of above stated factual matrix and considering the law on the subject, and considering the fact that defendant has acknowledged paragraph 3 as well as 6 of the written statement his liability by paying on account of debt till 31.01.2003, therefore, a fresh period of limitation will be counted from 31.01.2003 and will be in force up to 30.01.2006 whereas the present suit has been filed on 19.12.2005 before the learned trial Court, therefore, the suit has been filed within limitation prescribed under the Limitation Act. As such, the finding recorded by the learned trial Court that suit is barred by limitation is erroneous. 25. Learned trial Court further committed illegality in relying upon the opinion of handwriting expert whose report is silent with regard to the date mentioned in the Ex.P/1 to E.P/7 wherein date 21.06.2004 has been written. Thus, it is vague report. The learned trial Court has given much weightage to the opinion given by the handwriting expert ignoring the vagueness of the report, admission of the defendant that he has paid amount up to 31.01.2003. Thus, it is vague report. The learned trial Court has given much weightage to the opinion given by the handwriting expert ignoring the vagueness of the report, admission of the defendant that he has paid amount up to 31.01.2003. Even otherwise it is well settled law by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that while evaluating the expert evidence the court must be cautious as it is weak type of evidence and not substantive in nature. It has also been held that it may not be safe to solely rely upon such evidence and Court may seek indefinite and reliable corroboration in the facts of the given case, as general rule of prudence. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Chennadi Jalapathi Reddy vs Baddam Pratapa Reddy (Dead) through legal representatives and Another, (2019) 14 SCC 220 has held as under:- “8. By now, it is well-settled that the Court must be cautious while evaluating expert evidence, which is a weak type of evidence and not substantive in nature. It is also settled that it may not be safe to solely rely upon such evidence, and the Court may seek independent and reliable corroboration in the facts of a given case. Generally, mere expert evidence as to a fact is not regarded as conclusive proof of it. In this respect, reference may be made to a long line of precedents that includes Ram Chandra and Ram Bharosey v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1957 SC 381 , Shashi Kumar Banerjee v. Subodh Kumar Banerjee, AIR 1964 SC 529 , Magan Bihari Lal v. State of Punjab, (1977) 2 SCC 210 , and S. Gopal Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (1996) 4 SCC 596 . We may particularly refer to the decision of the Constitution Bench of this Court in Shashi Kumar Banerjee (supra), where it was observed that the evidence of a handwriting expert can rarely be given precedence over substantive evidence. In the said case, the Court chose to disregard the testimony of the handwriting expert as to the disputed signature of the testator of a Will, finding such evidence to be inconclusive. The Court instead relied on the clear testimony of the two attesting witnesses as well as the circumstances surrounding the execution of the Will. 9. In the said case, the Court chose to disregard the testimony of the handwriting expert as to the disputed signature of the testator of a Will, finding such evidence to be inconclusive. The Court instead relied on the clear testimony of the two attesting witnesses as well as the circumstances surrounding the execution of the Will. 9. On the other hand, in Murari Lal v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (1980) 1 SCC 704 , this Court emphasised that reliance on expert testimony cannot be precluded merely because it is not corroborated by independent evidence, though the Court must still approach such evidence with caution and determine its creditworthiness after considering all other relevant evidence. After examining the decisions referred to supra, the Court was of the opinion that these decisions merely laid down a rule of caution, and there is no legal rule that mandates corroboration of the opinion evidence of a handwriting expert. At the same time, the Court noted that Section 46 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (hereinafter “the Evidence Act”) expressly makes opinion evidence open to challenge on facts. In Alamgir v. State (NCT, Delhi), (2003) 1 SCC 21 , without referring to Section 46 of the Evidence Act, this Court reiterated the observations in Murari Lal (supra) and stressed that the Court must exercise due care and caution while determining the creditworthiness of expert evidence. 10. In our considered opinion, the decisions in Murari Lal (supra) and Alamgir (supra) strengthen the proposition that it is the duty of the Court to approach opinion evidence cautiously while determining its reliability and that the Court may seek independent corroboration of such evidence as a general rule of prudence. Clearly, these observations in Murari Lal (supra) and Alamgir (supra) do not go against the proposition stated in Shashi Kumar Banerjee (supra) that the evidence of a handwriting expert should rarely be given precedence over substantive evidence.” 26. So far as, the contention raised by the learned Senior Advocate for the defendant that plaintiff has paid Rs. 20,000/-in cash to the defendant has not been proved by recording cogent evidence is not acceptable on the basis of material placed on record since in the promissory note he has admitted that he has received Rs. So far as, the contention raised by the learned Senior Advocate for the defendant that plaintiff has paid Rs. 20,000/-in cash to the defendant has not been proved by recording cogent evidence is not acceptable on the basis of material placed on record since in the promissory note he has admitted that he has received Rs. 20,000/-also put his signature, therefore, there no other evidence is required, on the contrary, the burden lies upon the defendant to prove that he has put his signature under coercion or under undue influence. In this case the defendant has not led any evidence to substantiate this fact by denying his signature or his signature has been put by adopting coercive method. Therefore, the finding of the trial Court that the plaintiff has failed to prove that he has given Rs. 20,000/-to the defendant is erroneous finding. 27. Considering the facts of the case and above stated settled position of law, it is quite vivid that the plaintiff has proved his case that the defendant has acknowledged his liability / debt in the written statement, therefore, fresh limitation will start from 31.01.2003, as such, the finding recorded by the learned trial Court that the suit is barred by limitation is erroneous finding and liable to be quashed. The plaintiff has proved that he has given Rs. 75000/-through cheques as mentioned in foregoing paragraphs and subsequently Rs.20000/-in cash. Thereafter, till 31.01.2003 the defendant has repaid Rs. 19083/-towards principal amount. This fact has not been rebutted by the plaintiff by cogent evidence that the said amount has been repaid towards interest. Therefore, this Court finds that on 31.01.2003 the defendant has repaid Rs. 19083/-towards principal amount. The plaintiff is entitled to get Rs.75,917/-(computed as 75000+20000-19083) as principal amount. Since, it is commercial transaction, therefore, as per the provisions of Section 34 of the C.P.C. interest can be varied from 6% to 12% per annum. Considering lapse of very long period, it is directed that the plaintiff is entitled to get interest of 9% per annum on the principal amount. For convenience the computation of the interest is tabulated below upto 30.04.2022:- Calculation of interest @ 9% pa as on 31.01.2003 25000 (loan dated 05.07.2001) Rs. 3563/- 25000 (loan dated 27.11.2001) Rs. 2625/- 25000 (loan dated 12.12.2001) Rs. 2550/- (A) Total interest payable as on 31.01.2003 Rs. For convenience the computation of the interest is tabulated below upto 30.04.2022:- Calculation of interest @ 9% pa as on 31.01.2003 25000 (loan dated 05.07.2001) Rs. 3563/- 25000 (loan dated 27.11.2001) Rs. 2625/- 25000 (loan dated 12.12.2001) Rs. 2550/- (A) Total interest payable as on 31.01.2003 Rs. 8738/- Calculation of interest @ 9% pa from 01.02.2003 to 30.04.2022 75917 (remaining principal amount) Rs. 6263/- (01.02.2003 to 31.12.2003) Rs. 6833 pa x 18 = Rs.122994/- (from 01.01.2004 to 31.12.2021) Rs. 2278/- (from 01.01.2022 to 30.04.2022) (B) Interest payable from 01.02.2003 to 30.04.2022 Rs. 131527/- Total amount payable as on 30.04.2022 Principal amount Rs. 75917/- Interest as on 30.04.2022 (A) + (B) Rs. 1,40,265/- Total Rs. 2,16,182/- * From 01.05.2022 further interest of Rs. 570/-per month will be payable in addition till the actual payment is made. 28. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the plaintiff is allowed and the judgment and decree passed by the learned 9th Additional District Judge (FTC), Raipur on 16.08.2007 in Civil Suit No. 6-B of 2007 is set aside. The defendant is directed to pay Rs. 75,917/-with interest at rate of 9% per annum as tabulated above within three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 29. A decree be drawn-up accordingly.