ORDER

The short question that arises in this appeal is whether Exhibits B-4 and A-8 do not contain any acknowledgement of the liability by the Appellant - Defendant, the State of Kerala, and if so is the suit filed by the Respondent - Plaintiff, for recovery of the bid amount paid to the Forest Department, barred by limitation under Article 47 of the Limitation Act, 1963?

2. Briefly stated, the following facts give rise to this question.

3. The Forest Department of the State of Kerala auctioned the forest produce in different coupes. The Respondent was the highest bidder of Sub-coupe No. VII of Coupe X and his bid of Rupees seventy five thousand was accepted on January 15, 1974. The Respondent paid Rs. 60,125/- towards the bid amount and other charges and a sum of Rupees twenty five thousand remained unpaid. The Respondent was to collect and remove the whole forest produce of the said coupe on or before March 31, 1974. Part of it only was collected and removed by him before February 21, 1974, when unfortunately fire broke out in the reserved forest which destroyed also the remaining forest produce of the Respondent s coupe. The Respondent made representations to the Forest Department seeking reduction of the bid amount on the ground that his coupe was destroyed by the wild fire. On June 27, 1974, the Government of Kerala instead of reducing the bid amount thought it fit to grant further time of forty five days to enable him to remove the forest produce. The Respondent neither paid the balance of the bid amount nor removed the forest produce in his coupe. On September 19, 1974, the Divisional Forest Officer intimated to the Respondent that as he failed to satisfy the conditions of the contract and remit the amount due to the Government, it was cancelled and the produce left on the site was confiscated and ordered to be auctioned at the risk and loss of the Respondent.

4. The Respondent, thereafter, issued noticed under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure to the Appellant claiming the amount of compensation which included refund of the bid amount and filed the suit as indigent person on July 28, 1977 in the Court of Subordinate Judge, Trivandrum, praying the court to grant compensation to the tune of Rs. 83,000/- with twelve per cent interest per annum amounting to Rs. 35,690/- and future interest at six per cent per annum. The Appellant denied that it was liable for payment of any compensation and pleaded, inter alia, that the suit was barred by limitation. The trial Court came to the conclusion that as the Appellant acknowledged the liability both under Exhibits B-4 and A-8, the suit was not barred by limitation and thus decreed the suit on July 19, 1980. The Appellant carried the matter in appeal before the High Court of Kerala in A.S. No. 150 of 1981. On March, 31, 1981, the High Court confirmed the judgment of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal. From the said judgment of the High Court, the present appeal arises.

5. Ms. Malini Poduval, learned Counsel for the Appellant, contends that neither Exhibit B-4 nor Exhibit A-8 can be treated as an acknowledgement of the liability of the Respondent s claim, and therefore, the trial Court as well as the High Court erred in holding that the suit was not barred by limitation.

6. Mr. Ramesh Babu, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent, has submitted that the representation of the Respondent, requesting the Government to reduce the bid amount, would, by implication, include demand for refund of the bid amount and read in that background, Exhibits B-4 and A-8, are rightly held as acknowledgement of the liability by the Appellant. In the alternative, argues the learned counsel, as under Exhibit B-4, time for performance of the contract by the Respondent was extended till August 10, 1974, the suit will be within limitation from that date.

7. It is the common case of the parties that the suit of the Respondent for recovery of the bid amount paid by him for the forest produce, on t