( 1 ) HEARD learned counsel for appellants, nobody for respondents.

( 2 ) WE have gone through the record. The 1st appellant was defendant in O. S. No. 1233 of 1981 on the file of the IV Additional Judge, city Civil Court, Hyderabad. The suit was laid by the plaintiff for recovery of an amount of Rs. 14,480. 00 on the ground that the defendant in order to purchase a house, had obtained a loan of Rs. 14,480. 00 and had executed an agreement Ex. A-7 on 12-5-1977. In spite of his requests, the amount was not paid back. However, the liability of defendant was acknowledged by him in writing on 1-7-1978 through Ex. A-l.

( 3 ) THE suit was resisted by the defendant on various grounds. One of the grounds taken was that the suit was not filed on the basis of the original cause of action. It was claimed by the defendant that he had borrowed an amount of Rs. 8,0007- only from the plaintiff which he had also paid back. He contended that because of misrepresentation and fraud, he was made to sign Exs. A-1 and A-7 but he had no liability. He had also contended that Ex. A-7 was not admissible in evidence, also that the suit was time barred and therefore was liable to be dismissed.

( 4 ) ON the basis of these pleadings, the following issues were framed by the trial court:" 1. Whether the defendant borrowed Rs. 8,000. 00 as alleged ? 2. Whether the Bond dated 12-5-1977 obtained by the plaintiff is not admissible in evidence ? 3. Whether the bond dated 1 -7-1978 was obtained by the plaintiff by exercising fraud and coercion as alleged by the defendant ? 4. Whether the deft. repaid the amount of Rs. 8,000. 00 to the plaintiff? 5. Whether the plaintiffs claim is not maintainable in law and the plaintiff failed to make his claim on the original cause of action as alleged by the deft. In para 7 of the written statement ? 6. Whether the plaintiff suit is barred by limitation ? 7. Whether the plaintiff is regular money lender and the claim of the plaintiff is hit by the Hyderabad ? 8. To what relief ?"

( 5 ) WE are taking up the issue regarding the limitation first. Admittedly the suit was filed on 20-8-1981. Without going Into the question of the admissibility of the agreement Ex. A-7, even if it is accepted that this agreement was drawn and was admissible in evidence, it was drawn on 12-5-1977. About Ex. A-l, there is no dispute even about its admissibility because it is only an acknowledgment and It has been accepted by the defendant also that he had signed the document of course, he took the plea that he had signed this document by force. But the fact remains that the document has been admitted by the defendant to be the document signed by him and the plaintiff had also relied on this document for the purpose of showing that the debt was acknowledged even on 1 -7-1978, suit was filed on 20-8-1981. The suit has been filed admittedly beyond three years from 1 -7-1978. The trial Court in our view, was clearly wrong in coming to the conclusion that the period of limitation would start after two months of the signing of acknowledgment because in the acknowledgment, the defendant had agreed that he will pay back the amount and discharge the liability within two months from the date of signing of the acknowledgment. Therefore, the trial Court started counting the period of limitation from 1-9-1978 I. e. two months after the acknowledgement was signed. Section 18 of the Limitation Act lays down :"18. Effect of acknowledgment in writing: (1) Where, before the expiration of the prescribed period for a suit or application in respect of any property or right, on acknowledgment of liability in respect of such property or right has been made in writing signed by the party against whom such property or right is claimed, or by any person through whom he derives his title or liability, a fresh period of limitation shall be computed from the time when the acknowledgment was so signed. (2) Where the writing containing the acknowledgment is undated,