CHHAGANLAL SHIVLAL Vs. BONDERBAI RUPCHAND LOHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal from the decision of the First Class Subordinate Judge of Dhulia dismissing the plaintiff's suit, on two promissory notes, passed by the defendant, on the ground that they are time barred. The only question in this appeal is whether the purshis given by the plaintiff's pleader in the previous suit No. 482 of 1923, filed by the present defendant against the present plaintiff, operates as an acknowledgment under Section 19 of the Indian Limitation Act so as to save limitation.

(2.) The facts are simple. The promissory notes which were passed or alleged to have been passed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff are dated, March 17, 1921, a January, 6, 1922. The suit is brought on January 19, 1926, and would, therefore, be barred by limitation. But it appears that in a previous suit for accounts by the present defendant against the plaintiff, which is suit No. 482 of 1923, the plaintiff put in an application, Exh. 19 in this suit, saying that as it was not desirable to file a suit on the promissory note of 1921 because the accounts have not been made up, a definite explanation might be obtained from the plaintiff (the present defendant) as to whether she does or does not admit having passed the said and other promissory notes to the defendant, That purshis was put in on March 13, 1924. In reply to it two purshises have been put in by the present defendant, who was then plaintiff. One, Exh. 18, dated March 15, 1924, is to this effect : The plaintiff admits that the signature on the promissory note dated March 17, 1921, is plaintiff's signature, but she disputes its consideration.

(3.) The second purshis, Exh. 20, is to the following effect : The plaintiff admits execution of the promissory notes produced by the defendant. But as the consideration thereof has not been received by the plaintiff she does not admit the same. The account produced by the defendant purporting to be the plaintiff's khata is false and fabricated and the plaintiff does not admit the same. The defendant has withheld the true accounts.