LALIT ASSOCIATES Vs. RECKKIT AND BENKISER INDIA LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge by means of this Regular First Appeal filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is to the impugned judgment of the trial Court dated 24.4.2004 dismissing the suit of the appellant/plaintiff and also the counter claim filed by the respondent/defendant. Whereas the appellant/plaintiff claimed a sum of Rs. 3,07,228/-, the respondent/defendant made counter claim of Rs. 4,71,822/-. Both the suit as well as counter claim have been dismissed by the Court as being barred by limitation. Following are the observations of the Court under the issue No. 1 as to whether the suit of the plaintiff is within time:-

(2.) A reading of the aforesaid paragraph shows that the dealership agreement between the parties was terminated in the year 1998. The claims of the appellant/plaintiff pertain to period prior to the year 1998. Each of the claims will be a separate cause of action and therefore will have to be filed within three years from arising of such cause of action/claims, and since the suit has been filed much later on 5.3.2003, obviously all claims prior to the year 1998 were ex facie time barred in the year 2003. Appellant/plaintiff has also not filed its statement of account to show that the account was open, mutual and current account. Even if I assume that the account was open, mutual and current, limitation of three years under Article 1 of the Limitation Act, 1963 would have commenced w.e.f. 1.4.1999 and therefore limitation for filing of the suit would have expired on 30.3.2002, and therefore the suit filed on 5.3.2003 was barred by limitation. The appellant/plaintiff relied in the trial Court upon the statement of account issued by the respondent-company dated 12.1.2001, Ex.PW1/B for extending the limitation, however, the trial Court has disbelieved this document because it is only a computerized sheet of paper and is not signed by any person. The trial Court has observed that correctness of this account sheet has not been established by the plaintiff by summoning the account of the defendant or serving any notice to the defendant for filing of the ledger accounts.

(3.) I completely agree with the aforesaid conclusions of the trial Court inasmuch as the suit was clearly barred by time on account of the fact that claims of the appellant/plaintiff were of the year 1998 and prior and the suit was filed much later than three years i.e. on 5.3.2003. The statement of account, Ex.PW1/B, cannot be an acknowledgment of debt under Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963 inasmuch as an acknowledgment of debt under Section 18 has necessarily to be signed by the person against whom it is sought to be proved and admittedly the statement of account, Ex.PW1/B, is an unsigned document. I also agree with the finding and conclusion of the trial Court that the said statement is not proved. A reference to the paras 14 of the plaint and written statement shows that when statement was made by the plaintiff with respect to this statement of account, the respondent denied this in the written statement.