VISWESWARA RAO Vs. SATYANARAYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application to revise the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge of Vijayawada dismissing S. C. No. 625 of 1952 for recovery of money due to the plaintiff on khata in respect of articles purchased by the .respondent on credit. The khata dealings started from 26-9-1945. At the end of each year, the balance due under the khata was being carried over to the next year's account. The amount carried over to the account of 1948-49 was Rs. 455-14-0 and this amount had again been carried over to the next year's account i. e. 1949-50. On 26-10 49, a sum of Rs. 5/- was paid by the defendant and a receipt was passed by the plaintiff therefor. The suit was instituted on 27th October 1952. The plea of the defendant was that the payment of Rs. 5/- was not true and that the debt had become barred by limitation. He also contended that the plaintiff had to pay him a sum of Rs. 450/-as commission and that he agreed to credit that amount to the khata dealings. The Subordinate Judge held that the payment of Rs. 5/- was true and was made towards the khatha dealings and that the defendant was not an agent of the plaintiffs and was not entitled to set off any commission. But, on point No. 2 he upheld the plea of limitation and dismissed the suit. The plaintiff has consequently filed the Civil Revision Petition.

(2.) The learned Advocate for the plaintiff, Sri Triambakam, contended that the Subordinate Judge erred in holding that the suit was barred by limitation. The account shows that the three debit entries dated 17-2-1948, 18-2-1948 and 15-3-1948 are within three years of the payment dated 26-10-1949 but are beyond three years from the date of the filing of the suit. If the payment of Rs. 5/-and the receipt Ex. A-8 do not constitute a valid payment or acknowled- gement within the meaning of Sections 20 and 19 of the LIMITATION ACT, 1963, the claim will be barred by limitation. The Subordinate Judge took the view that each of the debit items should be regarded as a distinct debt and that the payment of Rs. 5/-not having been specifically made towards any one of the debit items or debts, all the items are barred by limitation. It is therefore necessary to examine whether the view taken by the Subordinate Judge is right. While the debit items dated 17th and 18th of February were in respect of certain spare parts supplied by the plaintiff to the defendant, the debit entry dated 15-3-1948 was in respect of cash paid by the plaintiff to the defendant The short question for decision is, whether there is a separate cause of action in respect of each item when there is a continuous account between the parties. In Bonsey v. Wordsworth , it was held on the strength of the previous authorities as follows:

(3.) The decision in Bonsey v. Wordsworth , referred to supra was followed by a Bench of the Calcutta High Court in Kedar Nath Mitra v. Dinabandhu Saha . Jenkins C. J. repelled the argument that there was a separate cause of action in respect of each item in a continuous account. This decision was not followed by the Allahabad High Court in Puttu Lal v. Jagannath . The learned Judges regarded the observations of Jenkins C. J. as obiter. They distinguished the decision in Bonsey v. Wordsworth , in the following words: