KIMS AGENCIES Vs. KELTRON

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendant, who suffered a decree for money, is the appellant. THE parties and facts are hereinafter referred to as they are available before the trial court.

(2.) THE plaintiff alleges that the defendant was their dealer for sale of electronic goods manufactured by the plaintiff and articles were delivered as per the order placed by the defendant. Towards the articles so delivered, amounts were due, details of which are given in the plaint. Ultimately, it was found that an amount of Rs. 1,61,656.99 was due with interest. Since the defendant did not pay the same, the suit was laid.

(3.) LEARNED counsel appearing for the appellant canvassed only the ground of limitation to contend for the position that the suit ought to have been dismissed. According to learned counsel, the documents produced by the plaintiff will clearly show that there was no agency relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant. Payment was due on each delivery and therefore time begins to run on delivery of each lot. There was no running account according to learned counsel for the appellant and therefore time has to be computed from each delivery. According to learned counsel it is Article 14 of the Limitation Act, which applies and if that be so, the suit is barred by limitation. In support of his contention, learned counsel relied on the decisions reported in Mukat Lal v. Gulab Singh, A.I.R. 1931 Allahabad 229, Firm Gulabrai v. Firm Ilahi Bux, A.I.R. 1945 Allahabad 185, and Md. Sultan & Co. v. Manickam, A.I.R. 1961 Madras 388.