Revision filed challenging time-barred suit under Order 37 CPC; Section 19 Limitation Act interpretation.

The plaintiff filed a revision challenging the Senior Sub Judge's decision that their suit under order 37 Civil Procedure Code was time-barred. The plaintiff had given a loan to the respondent, and when the interest cheque was dishonored, they filed the suit after a significant delay. The court held that the suit was not barred by time, interpreting Section 19 of the Limitation Act liberally to include payment by cheque as valid for extending the limitation period. The revision was allowed, and the case was remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.

---

---

Issues:
- Suit under order 37 Civil Procedure Code barred by time.

Analysis:
1. The plaintiff filed a revision against the Senior Sub Judge's order holding her suit under order 37 Civil Procedure Code to be time-barred.
2. The plaintiff had given a loan to the respondent and interest was agreed upon. The defendant issued a cheque for interest, which was later dishonored. The suit was filed after a significant period.
3. The question of whether the suit is barred by time is analyzed under Section 19 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The Senior Sub Judge held that a dishonored cheque does not extend the period of limitation.
4. Section 19 of the Limitation Act 1963 states that a fresh period of limitation starts when payment is made on account of a debt or interest.
5. The provision of Section 19 is to be interpreted liberally to avoid suits being barred by limitation as long as the payment is made on account of the debt.
6. Payment by cheque fulfills the requirement of Section 19 as it acknowledges payment in writing.
7. Previous judgments from High Courts of Madhya Pradesh and Calcutta support the view that a cheque can be considered payment for the purpose of extending the limitation period.
8. The single Bench view was approved by a Division Bench of the High Court of MP.
9. The High Court of Calcutta also held that the fresh period of limitation starts from the actual giving of the cheque.
10. Observations from the Supreme Court in various cases support the view that payment by cheque is valid unless specifically mentioned otherwise.
11. Payment by cheque is considered a valid mode of payment unless excluded by agreement of the parties.
12. A cheque sent in payment of a debt operates as a valid discharge of the debt unless dishonored.
13. Illustration provided to show that even if a cheque bounces, the advantage of extension in the limitation period earned by the plaintiff remains.
14. In the present case, the plaintiff accepted the cheque as payment, and the advantage of extension in the limitation period cannot be undone by the defendant's act of dishonoring the cheque.
15. The suit filed by the plaintiff is not barred by limitation.
16. The revision is allowed, and the case is sent back to the trial court for a fresh decision.
17. Directions given for the appearance of the parties before the trial court.

---