UNION BANK Vs. N RAGHAVAN NAIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff, a Banking Company, is the appellant. The defendant borrower money from the plaintiff from time to time. The suit which was for the balance due was filed more than 3 years after the date of the last transaction. The plaintiffs case was that the amount was due under a mutual, open and current account governed by Article 85 or the Indian Limitation Act. The, defendant contended inter alia that the suit was barred by limitation. The other contentions of the defendant are not material for the purpose of this second appeal. The trial Court held 'that Article 85 was applicable and the plaintiff was given a decree as prayed for. On appeal it was held that the transaction would not fall under Article 85 and that the suit was barred by limitation. The appeal was therefore allowed, dismissing the suit.

(2.) THE only point arising for decision is whether Article 85 of the Limitation Act is applicable. The last item of borrowing was on 31-3-1950 and the suit was instituted on 14-8-1953. If Article 85 is applicable the suit is within time, as the plaint was presented within 3 years of the last day of 1950.

(3.) IN deciding the nature of the transaction it is useful to refer to the circumstances under which dealings between the plaintiff and the defendant began. On 29-4-1949, the defendant sent a letter Ext. B to the plaintiff asking for overdraft accommodation. Ext. B reads as follows :