Pro note limitation after sending demand notice

In terms of Article 35 of Schedule to the Limitation Act, if there was no simultaneous Agreement to postpone a right to sue, the limitation to file a Suit for Recovery runs for three years from the date of the promissory note. Notice date has no relevance in such cases. A recovery suit should be within limitation.

You are informing that the pronote date is August 2016.  Therefore, limitation is available upto August 2019.  When the signature on the pronote is contested, the role of the witness who had witnessed the Pronote shall be vital.  Talk to the Witness/es and inform them of the situation.  Without knowing their present position, no opoint in going ahead with filing of suit.  Suppose, you go to court and the defendand, whom you are alleging that taken loan from you, says that he never took look and the signature on the pronote filed by you in support of your claim is forged, the role of people who witnessed the signature shall become paramount.

Originally posted by : SIVARAMAPRASAD KAPPAGANTU
	When the signature on the pronote is contested, the role of the witness who had witnessed the Pronote shall be vital.  Talk to the Witness/es and inform them of the situation. ... Suppose, you go to court and the defendand, whom you are alleging that taken loan from you, says that he never took look and the signature on the pronote filed by you in support of your claim is forged, the role of people who witnessed the signature shall become paramount.

Chamkaur Singh v. Mithu Singh, CR No.3434 of 2013, High Court of Punjab and Haryana, October 29, 2013.

---------------

Ordinarily, signature and handwriting of a person who is alleged to have signed or written document in question can be proved (i) by calling a witness who wrote the document, (ii) by admission of a person against whom the document is tendered and (iii) by calling a person as witness who saw the document being written/signed. The first two methods are excluded as the scribe of the questioned documents is an interested party. Third method is not feasible as more often there is no eye-witness who will be only seeing the writing or signing of the documents and have no other role to play regarding the said document. Thereafter, the only method for proving handwriting and signature is as per the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 ... Sections 45, 47, 67 and 73 of the Act are relevant to determine the questions, as arise in the present petition, which read as under: 45. Opinions of experts.-When the Court has to form an opinion upon a point of foreign law, or of science, or art, or as to identity of handwriting or finger impressions, the opinions upon that point of persons specially skilled in such foreign law, science or art, or in questions as to identity of handwriting or finger impressions are relevant facts. Such persons are called experts.
... Under Section 45 of the Act, the opinion of expert as to the identity of handwriting is relevant in determination of identity of handwriting before the Court. ...  The trial Court can summon the SFSL/CFSL [State Forensic Science Laboratory/Central Forensic Science Laboratory] expert for comparison of the questioned documents i.e. pronote and receipt with standard writing/signature and to check alteration or addition or may direct the authorities of the Laboratory to inspect the pronote and receipt in Court and submit report.

--------------------