by giving the legal demand notice to the defendant, limitation period to file the suit cannot be extended. He would also submit that the plaintiff could not prove that on 20.07.2008, defendant had executed the acknowledgment, by which the limitation period to file the suit may extend further. The plaintiff has admitted in her evidence that an endorsement in the document Ex.D1, was made by a person of Camp-1. He would also submit that as per Article 35 of the Limitation Act, 1963, limitation to file a suit for recovery of amount under a promissory note should be filed within three years from the date of its execution. He would further submit that even if it is taken to be true, that on 05.08.2004, defendant had paid Rs.500/- to the plaintiff, and executed an acknowledgment in the said promissory note Ex.P1, even then, the suit which was filed on 13.08.2008 is after four years of the said acknowledgment, which is apparently, barred by limitation. Learned trial Court, while deciding the issue-4, considered that the signature of defendant over the document Ex.P1 has been admitted by him that it was made on 05.08.2004, notice Ex.P2 was served on 28.02.2007, and the suit has been filed on 13.08.2008, which is within the limitation period, is completely erroneous, in view of Article 35 of the Limitation Act, 1963. It is also submitted that the appellant is an illiterate person, and the alleged promissory note is written in English, that too, it was not readable, and the same has been written in cursive writing. Further, plaintiff could not explain as to how, and why, the thumb impression of wife of the defendant has been taken in the said promissory note. Therefore, plaintiff could not establish the transaction between the parties, yet, learned trial court has proved the transaction of Rs.35,000/- between them, and decreed the suit in favour of plaintiff/respondent, which is liable to be set aside.
