R S SWAMI RAO Vs. T K KUMARASWAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE common question arise in these civil revision petitions and the second appeals is, whether the suits are barred by limitation" THE suits have been filed by different persons against the same set of defendants. THE first defendant is a partnership firm and defendants 2 to 5 are its partners. THE debts in all the cases commenced on 10.10.1974 and ended on 9.4.1977. Defendants 2 to 5 filed I.P.No.27 of 1977 for adjudicating themselves as insolvents on 2.7.1977. One of the creditors by name Kamalam was not included in the array of parties, she filed an application to implead herself as party and the same was ordered. Consequently, the original petition in the LP. was amended and the true copy of the amended petition was filed in court on 17.4.1980. THE following tabular statement will give the particulars of the present suits. THE statement itself shows why revisions have been filed in three of the suits and appeals arc filed in the rest. In the said 3 suits the value is below a sum of Rs.3,000 and as per Sec.102 of the Code of Civil Procedure, no second appeal would lie. THE trial court dismissed the suits as barred by limitation. On appeal, the appellate Judge has taken a view that the true copy filed by the Advocate in the insolvency proceedings on 17.4.1980 would amount to an acknowledgment within the meaning of Sec.18 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and consequently extend the period of limitation. He has considered the rulings relating to the question whether an Advocate would be an authorised agent for the purpose of making an acknowlegment. He has also considered the rulings which deal with acknowledgment under Sec.18 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Ultimately, he has held that the suits are not barred in view of the filing of the true copy in the insolvency proceedings.

(2.) IN this Court, it is contended by learned counsel for the defendants 2 to 5, that the suits are barred by limitation inasmuch as they have been filed within a period of three years from 9.4.1977 the date on which the debts ended or from 2.7.1977 when the INsolvency Petition was filed. According to him even if the filing of the INsolvency Petition would amount to an acknowledgment of the debts due to the plaintiffs in these cases, the amendment of the petition consequent to the addition of new party and filing of true copy in the court on 17.4.1980 would not amount to an acknowledgment within the meaning of law.

(3.) SIMILAR ruling is found in M/s.Lakshmiratan Cotton Mills Company Limited v. The Aluminium Corporation of India Limited, A.I.R. 1971 S.C. 1482:1970 S.C.D. 1146, on which also reliance is placed by the learned counsel. In that judgment the Supreme Court held that generally speaking a liberal construction of the statement in question should be given. That of course does not mean that where a statement is made without intending to admit the existence of jural relationship such intention should be fastened on the person making the statement by an involved and far-fetched reasoning.