The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of the provisions related to mutual, open, and current accounts under the Limitation Act, specifically Article 1 and 14, to determine the period of limitation for a money suit for recovery.

N.K. Agarwal, J.

1. Instant revision calls in question the legality and propriety of order dated 16.09.2009, passed by District Judge, Raipur, in Civil Suit No. 1-B/07, whereby the trial court has held, suit is governed by Article 1 of Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963 (for short 'the Act') and decided the preliminary issue framed in Plaintiff's (Respondent herein) favour.

2. Brief facts of the case are: money suit for recovery of Rs. 24,52,541.20 was filed by the Plaintiff against the Defendants (applicants herein). As per plaint averment, Plaintiff supplied to the Defendants GI wires, MS Wires and HB Wires etc. worth including taxes to Rs. 24,92,535/- on various dates commencing from 19.05.03 up to 21.01.04. Both the parties are maintaining books of account. An amount of Rs. 14,31,368/- is outstanding against the Defendants as on 31.03.2004 for which Plaintiff is entitled with interest @ 24 percent per annum and thus amount due is Rs. 24,52.541.20 including interest. According to Plaintiff, suit is governed by Article 1 of Schedule to the Limitation Act, and therefore, suit filed on 20.03.2007 is within limitation.

3. According to Defendants suit is governed by Article 14 of Schedule to the Act and suit being not filed within a period of three years from the date of last transaction, is barred by limitation.

4. During hearing of Writ Petition W.P. (227) No. 5975/2008 filed by the Defendants, counsel for both the parties have submitted that issue of limitation can be decided on the basis of plaint averment read with statement of account (Annexure A/6) as a preliminary issue, therefore, this Court vide order dated 23.06.2009, remitted back the matter to the trial court for deciding the issue of limitation based on plaint averment read with statement of account (Annexure A/6) as a preliminary issue. However, the trial court misconstrued the order of this Court, also recorded Plaintiff's evidence and vide order impugned, decided the issue in Plaintiff's favour. Hence this revision.

5. Shri Sunil Otwani, learned Counsel appearing for the applicants would submit: plaint averment read with statement of account (Annexure A/6) on the face, makes it clear suit has been filed for balance of price of goods and the same would be governed by Article 14 and not by Article 1 of Schedule to the Act for the purpose of computing limitation, and the trial court has committed manifest jurisdictional error in holding suit is governed by Article 1 of Schedule to the Act. As per Article 14 of Schedule to the Act, if No. fixed period of credit is agreed upon then suit is required to be filed for recovery within three years from the date of its supply. In the instant case, last delivery of consignment was made by the Plaintiff on 21.01.04, therefore, suit filed on 21.03.2007 is on the face barred by limitation and is not maintainable. In support of his contention, reliance has been placed upon the following judgments:

i. Hindustan Forest Company v. Lal Chand and Ors. AIR 1959 SC 1349 (para 10)

ii. Lakshman Prasad v. Ghasi Ram and Ors. AIR 1966 All 503

iii. Anumukonda Anjaneyulu v. Agricultural Traders. AIR 1973 AP 219 &

iv. Keshav Prasad v. Sunil Jauhar MPWN 1979 Note No. 84

6. On the other hand, Shri Prafull Bharat, learned Counsel appearing for the Plaintiff supported the order impugned and would submit: the trial court having found Defendants were paying the amount as lump-sum and as per Annexure A/6 there is shifting of balance on both the sides evidencing reciprocal demand and obligation, account is mutual, open & current, and suit would be governed by Article 1 of Schedule to the Act and is well within limitation.

7. I have heard the counsel appearing for the parties and perused the order impugned.

8. The core question involved in the case is whether or not suit is governed by Article 1 of Schedule to the Act for the purpose of computation of period of limitation.

9. Article 1 and 14 of Schedule to the Limitation Act reads as under:

Description of