KOMU HAJI HYSROSE HAJI Vs. MOOSAKUTTY BAVA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff in a suit on accounts is the appellant in the Second Appeal. The short facts of the case shorn of unnecessary details are : The plaintiff-appellant is a dealer in provisions and the defendant-respondent was an employee in the shop from 1956 onwards. In November 1969 the respondent ceased to be an employee of the appellant. While in employment the respondent used to purchase goods on credit and also take loans from the appellant. The amounts thus due from the respondent used to be adjusted from his salary. As per the accounts on 30-11-1969 some balance was due to the appellant. The suit was filed for the recovery of the above balance from the respondent as per accounts.

(2.) The respondent filed a written statement denying liability and also contending that the suit was barred by limitation.

(3.) The trial court found the accounts as genuine but rejected the appellant's contention that the same was a mutual, open and current account and held that it was Art.14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 that was applicable to the case and not Art.1 of the Act. Accordingly the trial Court held that except the last three items which fell within three years of the date of suit, the rest of the plaint claim was barred by limitation and the suit was disposed of on that basis.