The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the Limitation Act, 1963, specifically Article 18, and the significance of acknowledgment of liability in writing in determining the period of limitation for filing a suit.

JUDGMENT

Manish Pitale, J. - Heard by consent of the learned counsel for the rival parties.

(2) admit, on the questions of law framed by this Court by order dated 18/07/2018.

(3) By this appeal the appellant (original defendant) has challenged concurrent orders passed by the two Courts below. The respondent (original plaintiff) had filed a suit for recovery of amount, declaration and injunction against the appellant. The appellant filed a counter claim. The Court of Civil Judge Senior Division Chandrapur (hereinafter referred to as the 'trial Court') partly decreed the suit, directing the appellant to pay an amount of Rs.1,86,340.30/- to the respondent. The counter claim of the appellant was dismissed. aggrieved, the appellant as well as the respondent filed appeals before the District Court at Chandrapur. By judgment and order dated 15/01/2018, the District Court dismissed both the appeals, thereby confirming the decree passed by the trial Court.

(4) The respondent filed the aforesaid suit on the basis that as a transport contractor he was engaged by the appellant for transporting timber from different forest sections to the depot at Ballarshah. The transportation work was carried out during the period between January, 1986 to June, 1986. as per the agreement/contract, the respondent was to submit bills fortnightly.

(5) according to the respondent, the roads on which transport was undertaken were not traffic worthy, resulting in breakdown of machinery and further that the staff of the appellant was not cooperative. It was claimed that the challans issued by the forest department were defective. On this basis, the respondent claimed that he was entitled to recover amount from the appellant.

(6) While the appellant admitted outstanding amount of Rs.1,86,340.30/-, but it also claimed that it was entitled to recover certain amounts from the respondent. On this basis a counterclaim was filed on behalf of the appellant.

(7) By judgment and order dated 04/02/1999, the trial Court partly decreed the suit and dismissed the counter claim of the appellant. It was found that, while the suit was within limitation, the counter claim was barred by limitation. The appellate Court agreed with the findings rendered by the trial Court and accordingly dismissed the appeals filed by the rival parties.

(8) On 18/07/2018, this Court issued notice on the following two substantial questions of law:-

1. Whether the learned Courts below erred in law in holding that claim of the defendant was barred by law of limitation ?

2. Whether the learned Lower Court is correct in law in holding that Exh.80 is acknowledgment of debt by defendant and whether suit would be governed by article 18 of the Limitation act, 1963?

(9) While issuing notice, this Court directed that since the entire decretal amount was deposited by the appellant, there shall be interim stay to the decree. The appeal was finally heard upon the respondent entering appearance through counsel.

(10) Mr. Mohan Sudame alongwith Mr. akshaya Sudame, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that both the Courts below had erred in holding that the suit filed by the respondent was within limitation, while the counter claim filed on behalf of the appellant was barred by limitation. attention of this Court was invited to article 18 of the Schedule to the Limitation act, 1963, to contend that since limitation started to run from 01/07/1986, as the contract ended on 30/06/1986, the period of limitation of three years under article 18 of the Limitation act ended on 30/06/1989. It was submitted that since the suit was filed on 01/01/1990 and it was registered on 02/01/1990, it was clearly beyond the period of limitation and the suit ought not to have been entertained by the trial Court. It was submitted that the Courts below erred in applying Section 18 of Limitation act, 1963, pertaining to the effect of acknowledgment in writing to the facts of the present case. a letter dated 03/09/1987 sent by the appell