“8.06. It is required to be noted that the only contention on behalf of the plaintiffs in support of their case that the suit is within the period of limitation, is that they came to know about the forged signature on the power of attorney when they came to know from report of the handwriting expert and therefore, from that day, the suit is within the period of limitation. In support of the above submission, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the plaintiffs has relied upon section 17 of the Limitation Act. However, considering the facts of the case on hand, plaintiffs can not get benefit of section 17 of the Limitation Act. In the present case as stated above, even the original plaintiffs have instituted a private complaint in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Rajkot on 20/1/2004 for the offences punishable under sections 406, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of Indian Penal Code, against the defendants alleging forgery of the power of attorney dtd. 5/1/1997, and therefore, even considering section 17 of the Limitation Act, starting point of limitation at least can be said to be from the date on which the plaintiffs filed complaint alleging forgery of power of attorney and fraud. At this stage, Article 56 of the Limitation Act is required to be considered. As per Article 56 of the Limitation Act, period of limitation to file suit to declare forgery of any instrument issued or registered shall be three years from the date on which issue or registration becomes known to the plaintiffs. As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Khatri Hotels Private Ltd. [2011 (9) SCC 126], period of limitation would commence when right to sue first accrues.”
