KANCHIPATI RAMU NAIDU Vs. SRINIVAS CLOTH EMPORIUM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Thisrevisionbythedefendant in a small cause suit is directed against the decree granted by the lower court against him. The respondent filed the small cause suit out of which this revision arises for recovery of a sum of Rs.2,242-80, being the principal and interest due on Katha from the defendant. According to the plaintiff, the defendant opened a Katha account with the plaintiff-firm and purchased cloth on credit from time to time. By 23-6-1986 a sum of Rs. 1,752-40 was found due to the plaintiff as per the Katha account after giving credit to the sum of Rs. 1,000/- paid by the defendant on the said date. As the defendant failed to repay the amount due in sp'te of lawyer's notice dated 18-3-1987 got issued by the plaintiff to the defendant, the plaintiff laid the suiton 29-9-1988 for recovery of the amount due. In the written statement filed by him, the defendant, while admitting the Katha deal ings, however, disputed the alleged part- payment of Rs. 1,000/- and pleaded that the suit is barred by limitation. On a consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced in the case, the trial court held that the suit Katha is true, that the part-payment of Rs. 1,000/- on 23-6-1986 pleaded by the plaintiff is true and the same saves the suit claim from the barof limitation. Accordingly the lower court decreed the suit with costs for a sum of Rs.2,242-80 with subsequent interest at 6% per annum on Rs.1,752-40 from the date of the suit till the date of realisation. Hence this revision by the defendant in the suit.

(2.) Theonly question raised in this revision is whether the suit is barred by limitation?

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that even assuming that the alleged part-payment of Rs. 1,000/- said to have been made by the defendant on 23-6-1986 is true, the suit is clearly barred by time as there is no acknowledgment of the said payment either in the handwriting or in writing signed by the defendant as required under the proviso to Section 19 of the Limitation Act. In support of the above contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner-defendant has relied upon two judgments of this court in Syed Jalahiddin Hasa Quadri v. M/s. Tara Pharmacy Represented by its Managing Partner (1) AIR 1966 AP 136 and K.Suryanarayana v. State Bank of India (2) 1988 (2) ALT 833.