HEERA SINGH Vs. GIRDHARILAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application in revision by the defendants against a decree of the Civil Judge, Ganganagar acting as a Tribunal under the Displaced Persons (Debt Adjustment) Act 1951 (hereinafter called the Act) passed on the application of Girdharilal plaintiff.

(2.) THE facts which have been proved from the evidence on record are these. Girdharilal plaintiff used to carry on business before partition in Mandi Chistion in the Bahawalpur State,which is now in Pakistan under the name and style,tarasingh Girdharilal, THE defendants Heerasingh and his three sons Jagguram,munsiram and Bhagwandas constituted a joint Hindu family firm which carried on business in Mandi Chistion under the name Heerasingh Jagguram. THE plaintiff and the defendants migrated to India after partition and settled in Ganganagar. THE parties had money dealings since Asoj badi 8 Svt. 2000. Girdharilal used to advance money to the defendants from time to time and the latter made payments from time to time. Accounting took place between the parties on Magh badi 6 Svt. 2002 corresponding to 18. 1. 46 and a sum of Rs. 979/-/3 was found due against the defendants. An entry was made about this balance in the Khata of the defendants by Munsiram which was signed by Heerasingh defendant. A fresh Khata for Rs 979/-/3 was opened on the same day and various writings were made about it both by Munsiram and by Heerasingh in which it was mentioned that they had understood the accounts and found this sum to be due against them. THE application under sec. 10 of the Act was made on 17. 12. 52. It was not mentioned in the application as required under Order 7 Rule 6 C. P. C. as to how the claim was within time. THE defendants resisted the claim interalia on the ground that it was barred by limitation. THE Tribunal passed a decree against them but it was not mentioned in the judgment as to how the claim was within limitation. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties I am satisfied that it is barred by limitation.