An acknowledgment of debt resets the limitation period, and valid documentation from the plaintiff established defendants' liability despite claims of time-barred debt.

JUDGMENT :

ANU SIVARAMAN, J.

This Commercial Appeal is filed aggrieved by the judgment dated 06.01.2022 passed by the I Additional District Judge and Commercial Court, D.K., Mangaluru ('Commercial Court' for short) in Commercial Original Suit No.298/2020.

2. We have heard Shri. Prakash B.N, learned counsel appearing for the appellants and Shri. G. Balakrishna Shastry, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

3. The suit was filed seeking a decree for payment of an amount of Rs.94,39,707.75/- towards unpaid bills for Work Done, Security Deposit, Administrative Expenses and Royalty along with interest from the date of demand as against the appellant.

4. The plaintiff/respondent herein raised the contention that the plaintiff was granted a contract by the defendants for the construction of five new bridges on the Gundya Subramanya Road. After the work was satisfactorily completed, the plaintiff had sought payments from the defendants, where upon the defendants had specifically informed that the amounts due to the plaintiff would be paid as and when payments were made to the defendants by the Karnataka Road Development Corporation Limited ('KRDCL' for short). It is submitted that when the amounts were not paid inspite of repeated requests, a lawyers notice was issued on 17.03.2016, but no reply was received to the same. The suit was thereafter filed on 06.03.2017.

5. The written statement was filed by the appellants herein contending that even going by the plaint averments, the work order was of the year 2006 and the last payment made to the plaintiff was in the year 2012. It was therefore contended that the claim was barred by limitation.

6. The Commercial Court framed the following issues:-

"1. Whether the plaintiff proves that, the defendants are liable to pay Rs.94,34,707.75/- along with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. from 11.12.2006 to till the complete payment?

2. Whether the plaintiff proves that, the defendants failed to pay the dues inspite of demand?

3. Whether this court is having jurisdiction?

4. Whether the suit is in time?"

7. Issues (1), (2) and (4) were taken together and it was found that the defendants had clearly sent mails acknowledging the debt and promising to pay the amounts due once the KRDCL made the payments to the defendants. Though the plaint was initially filed for recovery of Rs.79,90,649.75/-, the plaint was amended on 02.02.2021 and suit claim was raised to Rs.94,39,707.75/-.

8. Considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Commercial Court found that Ex.P1 - Manual Work Order issued on 18.12.2006, Ex.P2 - Work Order dated 11.12.2006, the confirmation letters as well as measurement books and payment details had also been produced by the plaintiff. Ex.P8 - Confirmation Letter dated 05.12.2013 recorded a balance amount of Rs.46,76,198/- while Exs.P9 and P10 are Confirmation Letters regarding further amounts. The Commercial Court found that Ex.P11-email of defendant No.1 acknowledged the debt and requested the plaintiff to come for a discussion in its office with relevant records in support of its claim on 31.03.2016 or in the first week of April 2016. Further, it was found that the bills in support of the plaint claim had been duly produced by the plaintiff. The oral evidence was also given by PW.1 in support of the plaint contentions. With regard to the plea of limitation, it was found that a clear admission in Ex.P11 email which was fully extracted in the judgment under appeal, the plea could not be sustained.

9. On these findings, it was found that the suit was in time and the suit was decreed as follows:-

"1. That, the suit of the plaintiff firm is partly decreed with cost.

2. Tha