Judgement

Appeal (No. 112 of 1932) from a decree of the High Court (January 19, 1932), reversing a decree of the Subordinate Judge of Shahjahanpur (September 14, 1927).

The appellant firm, who were moneylenders and had had dealings with the respondents for many years, sued them on December 29, 1926, claiming Rs. 16,043, as the amount due upon an account stated on September 26, 1925, and interest since due. The only question arising upon the appeal was whether the suit was barred by limitation.

The facts appear from the judgment of the Judicial Committee.

The High Court (Mukerji and Bennet JJ.), reversing the decree of the trial judge, dismissed the suit on the ground that it was barred. The learned judges, following Ganga Prasad v. Ram Dayal (( 1901) I. L.

R. 23 A. 502.), held that art. 64 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1908, applied only where the account stated consisted of mutual demands. They were also of opinion that there was no express promise to pay so as to make s. 25, sub-s. 3 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, applicable. The judgment is reported at I. L. R. 54 A. 506.

1934. Dunne K.C. and Hyam for the appellants. The Indian Limitation Act, 1908, Sch. I, art. 64, applied t