KESHRIMAL DEVICHAND PORWAL Vs. BHUWAN MODA SUTTAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal arises out of a suit for money and involves the question regarding limitation and particularly the effect of mentioning the debt sued upon in the petition to the Debt Conciliation Board by the debtor for conciliation of his debts under the Indore Debt Concilia Son Act.

(2.) The facts giving rise to the present appeal in so far as they are necessary for the consideration of this question are as follows : On Savan Badi I Samvat Year 1995 a balance of Rs. 392-3-9 was struck in the Khata of the defendant with the plaintiff. The defendant acknowledged this sum as due from him and agreed to repay it by 14 instalments of Rs. 24/- each falling due on Pous Sudi 15 and Vaisakh Sudi 15 of each year after the execution of the Khata and two instalments of Rs. 28 and Rs. 28-3-9 falling due on Pous Sudi 15 S.Y. 2002 and Jeth Sudi 15 S.Y. 2003 respectively. In default of payment of instalments agreed upon interest at Rs. 1-8-0 per cent per mensem was to be paid. The defendant is said to have paid various sums of money aggregating Rs. 136/- in Samvat Year 1995 to 1998. On Assd Badi 1 S. Y. 1997 the defendant is said to have acknowledged title sum of Rs. 376-7-0 due in respect of a separate Khata. The suit was filed on 5-8-1950. The defendant had submitted a petition, it is said, to the Debt Conciliation Board and had mentioned the debt in question therein. The proceedings before the Board remained pending from 18-2-1942 upto 1-10-1947 when the Board was abolished. This period was sought to be excluded while computing limitation.

(3.) The defendant denied the entire claim including plaintiff's allegations as to acknowledgment and payments.