KASHI RAM PHOOL CHAND Vs. S KRIPAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this application for review of my judgment dated 11th April, 1980 in the above Second Appeal, the plaintiff, who was the respondent in the appeal and is the applicant for review, contends that the judgment suffers from an error of law apparent on the face of the record. The error, as pointed out by Mr. Radha Krishna, learned counsel for the applicant for review, is that, while holding that the suit was barred by limitation, I had omitted to consider the provisions of Article 64 of Schedule I to the Indian Limitation Act, 1908 which is in the following terms :- "64. For money payable to the plaintiff for money found to be due from the defendant to the plaintiff on accounts stated between them-Three years- When the accounts are stated in writing signed by the defendant or his agent duly authorized in this behalf, unless where the debt is, by a simultaneous agreement in writing signed as aforesaid, made payable at a future time, and then when that time arrives." The suit having been filed in the year 1963, it is the Act of 1908 which applies to the present case and not the Limitation Act, 1963, nevertheless, it may be stated that the corresponding Article in the Schedule to the 1963 Act is Article 26, the terms of which are identical with those of Article 64 of the 1908 Act.

(2.) THE argument was that the accounts were stated by the writing dated the 31st March, 1960 and the sum of Rs. 4,075/- was found due from the defendant to the plaintiff vide-Ext. I. According to learned counsel Ext. 2, the agreement dated 21st May, 1960, which has been treated to be an acknowledgement of liability extending the period of limitation, by allowing the computation of a fresh period of three years from its date, may be said not to contain any promise by the defendant to pay the amount at any future date and in that sense it may be that the accrual of the cause of action for the suit when filed on the basis of the agreement was not postponed by it. But the fact remained that the terms of the agreement did make the amount, which was again acknowledged by the defendant thereby to be due from him, payable at a future time, that future time being the 22nd April, 1963 before which date a suit for its recovery could not be filed in accordance with those terms. THErefore, learned counsel argued that, under Article 64 of the First Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1908 the limitation of three years for the suit had to be computed from the date by which the amount was made payable, and that date being the 22nd April, 1963, the limitation of three years had to be computed from that date.

(3.) MR. Radha Krishna also invited my attention in this connection to an observation in the case of Kunjilal Ramgopal v. Dwarka Prasad, ILR 1945 All. 35 which had been cited by MR. Rajeshwari Prasad at the hearing of the appeal and is referred to in my judgment sought to be reviewed. That observation is :