JUDGMENT : ASHOK S. KINAGI, J. 1. This Regular Second Appeal is filed by the appellant, challenging the judgment and decree dated 15.12.2012 passed in R.A.No.80/2012 by the Learned Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Sagar. 2. For convenience, the parties are referred to based on their rankings before the trial Court. The appellant was the plaintiff, and the respondents were the defendants. 3. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this appeal are as follows: The plaintiff filed a suit against the defendants for recovery of money of Rs.60,000/- with interest. It is the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff is a contractor by profession and also doing a business. The husband of defendant No.1 by the name P.Raju is known to the plaintiff. Defendant Nos.2 to 5 are the children of defendant No.1 and deceased P.Raju, who passed away on 03.11.2006. It is contended that P.Raju took a hand loan of Rs.60,000/- from the plaintiff on 20.05.2006 and agreed to repay the said loan amount within 4 months. The plaintiff requested deceased P.Raju to repay the loan amount, but the deceased Raju has not repaid the loan amount. On 08.10.2006, P.Raju issued a post dated cheque bearing No.133358 dated 04.12.2006, drawn on Canara Bank, Kargal branch, in plaintiff's favour and the said fact was known to the defendants. The plaintiff presented the said cheque for encashment. The said cheque returned with an endorsement stating "withdrawal stopped owing to death". After receipt of endorsement of the bank, the plaintiff got issued legal notice on 08.12.2006, calling upon the defendants to repay the loan with interest. The defendants did not reply to the legal notice. Hence, a cause of action arose for the plaintiff to file a suit for recovery of money. Accordingly, he prays to decree the suit. 4. The defendants filed a written statement denying the averments made in the plaint and also regarding the borrowing of a loan of Rs.60,000/- from the plaintiff and also the issuance of a cheque by P.Raju. It is contended that P.Raju has not availed any loan at any point in time. It is contended that the suit filed by the plaintiff is barred by limitation. Hence, pray to dismiss the suit. 5. The trial Court, based on the pleadings of the parties, framed the following issues. It is contended that P.Raju has not availed any loan at any point in time. It is contended that the suit filed by the plaintiff is barred by limitation. Hence, pray to dismiss the suit. 5. The trial Court, based on the pleadings of the parties, framed the following issues. ISSUES 1) Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.60,000/- on 20.05.2006? 2) Whether the plaintiff proves that he is entitled to recover suit claim of Rs.60,000/- with interest @ 18% pa from the defendant? 3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief as prayed for? 4) What decree or order? 6. The plaintiff, to substantiate his case, examined himself as PW1 and marked 7 documents as Ex.P1 to Ex.P7. In rebuttal, defendant No.1 was examined as DW1 and marked 2 documents as Ex.D1 to Ex.D2. 7. The trial Court, after recording the evidence, hearing both sides and on the assessment of both verbal and documentary evidence, answered issue No.1 in the affirmative, issue No.2 partly in the affirmative, issue No.3 in the negative and issue No.4 as per the final order. 8. The suit of the plaintiff was decreed with costs, and it was ordered and directed that the defendants are liable to pay the loan amount of Rs.60,000/- to the plaintiff with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of loan till actual realization. 9. The defendants, aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 14.03.2012 passed in O.S.No.306/2009 by the Civil Judge and JMFC, Sagar preferred appeal in R.A.No.80/2012 on the file of the Learned Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Sagar. 10. The First Appellate Court, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, framed the following points for consideration. 1. Whether the appellants-defendants prove that the judgment and decree passed by the learned Prl.Civil Judge (Jr.Dn) and JMFC in O.S.No.306/2009 dated 14.03.2012 is perverse, illegal, arbitrary and calls for interference by this Court? 2. What Order? 11. The First Appellate Court, on re-assessment of verbal and documentary evidence, answered point No.1 in the affirmative, Point No.2 as per the final order. The first appellate Court allowed the appeal with costs and set aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court and accordingly, dismissed the plaintiff's suit. The plaintiff, aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed in R.A.No.80/2012, filed this regular second appeal. 12. The first appellate Court allowed the appeal with costs and set aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court and accordingly, dismissed the plaintiff's suit. The plaintiff, aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed in R.A.No.80/2012, filed this regular second appeal. 12. Though the defendants had earlier appeared through the counsel, subsequently the counsel filed a memo for retirement. This Court permitted the counsel to retire from the case and directed the office to reflect the names of the respondents in the cause list. None appears for the respondent. 13. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the plaintiff. 14. Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that the plaintiff advanced a loan to P.Raju on 20.05.2006 and it was agreed that the deceased P.Raju should repay the loan amount within 4 months. Deceased P.Raju issued a cheque dated 04.12.2006 on 08.10.2006, towards the payment of loan amount, and the said cheque was presented for encashment and dishonoured for a reason "Withdrawal stopped owing to death" and plaintiff got issued a legal notice on 08.12.2006. The defendants did not reply to the said legal notice. Hence, a cause of action arose for the plaintiff to file a suit for money recovery. He submits that the suit filed by the plaintiff is within the time from the date of dishonouring of the cheque. He submits that the first appellate Court has committed an error in not considering Section 20 of the Limitation Act 1960. He submits that the first appellate court committed an error in dismissing the suit of the plaintiff on the ground of a limitation. Hence, on these grounds he submits that the impugned judgment passed by the first appellate Court is arbitrary, perverse and erroneous. Accordingly, he prays to allow the appeal. 15. This Court admitted the appeal on 24.06.2021, to consider the following substantial questions of law: 1. Whether the First Appellate Court is justified in reversing the judgment and decree of the trial Court? 2. Whether the First Appellate Court is justified in holding that suit is barred by limitation? Reg. Substantial Questions of law Nos.1 and 2: 16. Substantial question Nos.1 and 2 are inter connected, and hence they are taken together for common discussion to avoid the repetition of facts. 17. The plaintiff, to substantiate his case, examined himself as PW1. 2. Whether the First Appellate Court is justified in holding that suit is barred by limitation? Reg. Substantial Questions of law Nos.1 and 2: 16. Substantial question Nos.1 and 2 are inter connected, and hence they are taken together for common discussion to avoid the repetition of facts. 17. The plaintiff, to substantiate his case, examined himself as PW1. He deposed that the plaintiff is the contractor by profession and husband of defendant No.1, father of defendant Nos.2 to 5 i.e., P.Raju was a good friend of the plaintiff. He approached the plaintiff and requested to advance hand loan of Rs.60,000/-/. The plaintiff advanced a hand loan of Rs.60,000/- on 20.05.2006. It was agreed that the deceased P.Raju should repay the loan amount within four months. The deceased P.Raju did not repaid the said loan amount within 4 months. The plaintiff requested deceased P.Raju to repay the loan amount. The deceased P.Raju issued a post dated cheque bearing No.133358 on 08.10.2006. The plaintiff presented the said cheque for encashment on 04.12.2006. The said cheque returned with an endorsement stating "Withdrawal stopped owing to death". Thereafter, the plaintiff issued a notice to the defendants on 08.12.2006. The defendants did not replied to the said legal notice. The plaintiff, to prove his case, has produced the documents. Ex.P1 and Ex.P2 are the endorsements. Ex.P3 is the office copy of the notice Ex.P4 to Ex.P6 are the postal receipts Ex.P7 is the cheque issued by P. Raju and Ex.P7(a) is the signature. 18. During the cross examination, it is suggested that the plaintiff did not lend money of Rs.60,000/- to the deceased P.Raju and it is also denied that the deceased P.Raju had issued a post dated cheque. The said suggestion was denied by PW1. In rebuttal, defendant No.1 was examined as DW1. He has reiterated the written statement averments in the examination-in-chief and he has deposed that the deceased P.Raju had never borrowed any amount from the plaintiff at any point of time and further deposed that the deceased P.Raju had never issued a cheque bearing No.133358 dated 04.12.2006. She had deposed that P.Raju died on 03.11.2006. Hence, to prove the defence, she has produced the documents. Ex.D1 is the copy of the legal notice. Ex.D2 is the endorsement 19. From the perusal of the records, it discloses that the plaintiff advanced a loan of Rs.60,000/- to the deceased P.Raju on 20.05.2006. She had deposed that P.Raju died on 03.11.2006. Hence, to prove the defence, she has produced the documents. Ex.D1 is the copy of the legal notice. Ex.D2 is the endorsement 19. From the perusal of the records, it discloses that the plaintiff advanced a loan of Rs.60,000/- to the deceased P.Raju on 20.05.2006. He issued a post dated cheque towards repayment of loan amount. The plaintiff presented the said cheque. The said cheque was returned with an endorsement "Withdrawal stopped owing to death". Though the deceased P.Raju passed away on 03.11.2006, from the date of death of deceased P.Raju, the plaintiff filed a suit on 30.10.2009. As from the date of the death of the deceased P.Raju, the plaintiff filed a suit within 3 years. The said aspect was not properly considered by the first appellate Court and committed an error in dismissing the suit of the plaintiff on the ground that the suit is barred by limitation. 20. The first appellate Court, without properly examining the evidence placed on record, has dismissed the suit. It is the settled law that the Court is required to consider the other issues, including the issue of limitation. The suit cannot be thrown out only on the ground of limitation. Thus, the first appellate Court has committed an error in reversing the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. In view of the above discussion, I answer substantial questions No.1 and 2 in the negative. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following order: ORDER : 1. The Appeal is allowed. 2. The judgment and decree passed in R.A.No.80/2012 dated 15.12.2012 by the learned Senior Civil Judge and JMFC is set aside, and the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court in O.S.No.306/2009 dated 14.03.2012 are restored. 3. No order as to the costs.