Knox and Aikman, JJ.:— This is an appeal from an order passed by the Subordinate Judge of Bareilly in appeal remanding a case under s. 562 of the Civil Procedure Code for trial on the merits. The claim as laid by the plaintiff was to enforce payment of money which had been borrowed from him upon certain jewels which had been pledged with him. The prayer in the plaint, however, is not merely for recovery of money due by sale of the property pledged. There was a further prayer for the recovery of the balance due after sale of the jewelry by proceedings against the persons of [286] the defendants, now appellants. The claim was instituted more than three years from the date when the money had been borrowed and the jewelry pledged. The Court of first instance held that the suit was one governed by art. 80 of the second schedule of the Limitation Act of 1877 and dismissed the suit. The Subordinate Judge was of opinion that there was no express article in the Limitation Act applicable to the suit and therefore applied art. 120. The question before us was considered by the High Court at Calcutta in Nim Chand Baboo v. Jagabundhu Ghose. The learned Judges who decided that case were of opinion that, so far as the plaint might pray for a decree for the money lent against the defendant personally it was barred under art. 57; but so far as the plaintiff sought to enforce his charge against the property pledged, the suit fell, not within art. 57, but within art. 120 of the schedule and was therefore not barred. We agree in the opinion there expressed. While, therefore, we dismiss this appeal, we so far modify the order of the lower appellate Court as to direct the Court of first instance to dispose of the suit on the merits with regard to the remarks made above. The respondents will get their costs.
Appeal dismissed.