AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
K. Kannan, J.—The second appeal has been filed against the concurrent orders passed by the Courts below where the plaintiff-company has succeeded in suit for recovery of Rs. 1,20,000/- with interest @ 12% from the date of filing of the suit till the realization of the amount. The defendant company-judgment debtor aggrieved against the orders of the Courts below is in second appeal before this Court. The suit was filed by the plaintiff-company, which was engaged in manufacturing leather and had been supplying leather to the defendant-company on credit from time to time from Jalandhar and the defendant company had also been remitting the amount to the plaintiff in its company account at Jalandhar against purchase of the goods. As per the statement of accounts of the plaintiff company, an amount of Rs. 79,647.75 was due from the defendant out of total amount due which was Rs. 1,04,647.75 but on payment of Rs. 25,000/- through cheque dated 26.07.1980, the amount due was reduced to Rs. 79,647.75 and registered notices dated 06.12.1982 and 14.03.1983 were sent to the defendant in this regard. Since the defendant company failed to make the payment, the plaintiff was forced to file the suit for recovery of amount due.
The contest entered by the defendant was mainly on two grounds. One, the plaint was vague and indefinite for want of particulars as required under Order 7 Rule 2 CPC and the defendant had not admitted the statement of accounts and was not liable to make the payment. Two, the trial Court was not vested with jurisdiction and the suit was time barred. As regards the first point, the trial Court held that the plaintiff had placed on record bills Ex. PX to PX/8 and Ex. P4 to P22, which were admitted by DW-1 during cross examination except bill No. 60 and the amount claimed due by the plaintiff was not controverted by the defendant at any stage before filing of the suit. The part payment of Rs. 25,000/- itself showed that the defendant had admitted the liability and held the defendant liable to make the payment. As regards the issue of limitation, the trial Court held that as per Article 19 of the Limitation Act, 1963 the period for filing a suit for money was three years from payment in writing and the time began to run when the part payment on account of debt was made. It held, therefore, that suit filed on 16.07.1983 was well within time when the payment was made on 26.07.1980 through cheque.
The Appellate Court in its order upheld all the findings of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal filed by the defendant-judgment debtor. Before the Appellate Court, the contention of the defendant was that the trial Court wrongly held that Article 19 will be applicable for calculating the time for filing the suit. It was contended that the goods were supplied from 10.11.1975 onwards and the period of limitation ought to have been counted from the date of delivery of goods as per Article 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The Appellate Court observed that letter Ex. PX dated 06.07.1982 issued by the plaintiff to the defendant firm showed that on 30.06.1982, the due balance was Rs. 79,647.75 and the defendant was requested to confirm the said balance and to send remittance by cheque/draft immediately. This letter was received by the defendant on 08.12.1982 but it chose neither to send any notice controverting the statement of account sent by the plaintiff-company nor it sent its own statement of account to reconcile the balance with the plaintiff-company. The 1st Appellate Court held that it was a case where the parties had settled their accounts and hence, Article 26 of the Limitation Act will apply to the case. It affirmed the finding the trial Court that the suit was within time though on different reasoning. As regards the issue of jurisdiction, both the Courts below have held that the goods were supplied from Jalandhar and hence, the trial Court had jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the issues canvassed in the suit by the plaintiff. The second appeal has been admitted on 09.10.1986 but without framing any substantial question of law. The payment through cheque extended the period of limitation. I have examined the facts and narrated them in detail as aforesaid. I find that there is no substantial question of law involved in the case for consideration. I, therefore, dismiss the appeal confirming the orders rendered by the Courts below. The stay granted at the time of admission stands vacated.