RAMLOCHAN PANDE Vs. RAMNARAIN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In Bishun Chand V/s. Girdhari Lal AIR 1984 Pc 147 the Judicial Committee has laid down that Art. 61, Lim. Act, which deals with suits "on accounts stated" between the parties applies although the account is not of mutual claims, but on the one side, of sums advanced and interest payable and, on the other side, of payments made. The account upon which the present suit is based is of this description and has been accepted as genuine by the Court below. It appears that the account between the parties used to be periodically adjusted and so in support of his case the plaintiff filed certain accounts of the previous year also in the course of the trial. Two of these accounts purport to bear the thumb mark of the defendant but the learned Subordinate Judge has stated in his judgment that as the identity of the thumb mark has not been proved "the acknowledgment of those accounts has not been established". On this view he has held that the last account was not a stated account within the meaning of Art. 64 and the plaintiff's claim with the exception of Rs. 22.8-0 was barred by limitation.

(2.) I am, however, unable to agree with this reasoning. The account upon which the present suit is based includes a sum of Rs. 213 which was brought forward from the previous year's account as well as the fresh advances made in the course of the year in which the account was compiled. On the other side it shows various payments made from time to time by the defendant and at the end a balance is struck which is acknowledged to be correct by the defendant. The Judicial Committee has pointed out that where an account has been settled it is immaterial that some of the items were statute-barred and that if it is left in doubt whether all the items were so barred it would be for the defendants to upset, if they could, the validity of the settled account. In this case it was clearly for the defendant to prove, that the dues brought forward from the previous year's account were time- barred and in any case the mere fact that some of the items are statute-barred can be of no avail to him where the suit has been brought on account stated. In these circumstances I have no hesitation in holding that the view taken by the learned Subordinate Judge is wrong and his judgment and decree must be set aside. I would, therefore, allow this application, set aside the decree of the Court below and direct that a decree be passed in favour of the plaintiff with costs through-out for a sum of Rs. 270. This sum will carry interest at the rate of six per cent. per annum from the date of this decree till realization. Hearing fee will be one gold mohur. Madan, J.

(3.) I agree.