( 1 ) THIS appeal is directed against judgment and decree dated 18th January, 1999 passed by Shri Ved Prakash Vaish, Additional District Judge, Delhi dismissing the appellant/plaintiff s suit for recovery of Rs. 1,77,048. 58 p. holding it to be barred by limitation. Learned Counsel for the parties urged that as the Trial Court record has been and the point involved is short, the appeal be finally heard. Accordingly by this judgment the appeal is being disposed of.

( 2 ) FACTS giving rise to this appeal briefly are: that the appellant (plaintiff) filed a suit against the respondents (defendants) for recovery of Rs. 1,77,048. 58 p. with costs and interest @ 18% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the date of realisation alleging therein that the defendant No. 2 is the sole proprietor of defendant No. 1 , M/s. National Steels; that defendants had been purchasing iron steel goods from the plaintiff s firm and had been making part payments from time- to-time; as per the books of account kept by the plaintiff, a sum of Rs. 4,89,178. 65 p. was due and outstanding against the defendants; vide their letter dated 7th January, 1994 defendants informed the plaintiff s firm that they had verified the statement of account sent by the plaintiff s firm to them for the period from 1st April, 1993 to 18th December, 1993 and it showed an excess debit balance of Rs. 23,842. 73 p. During the year 1994 the defendants also made purchases on credit and made part payments after giving adjustment of all the payments received from the defendants a sum of Rs. 1,14,252. 33 p. was found due and outstanding against the defendants. It was pleaded that the cause of action had accrued to the plaintiff firstly on 18th March, 1995 when the defendants made the last payment of Rs. 1,00,000. 00 to the plaintiff vide cheque No. 062578 dated 11th March, 1995 drawn on Union Bank of India, Karol Bagh, New Delhi infavour of the plaintiff s firm and, thereafter on various dates when the plaintiff had demanded the dues from the defendants and the same were not paid. The cause of action lastly arose on 14th March, 1998 when the defendants refused to make payment to the plaintiff.

( 3 ) AFTER service of summons respondent appeared and filed writ statement, inter alia, raising a preliminary objection that the suit was barred by limitation and was liable to be dismissed on this short ground. It was pleaded that the defendant had delivered the cheque No. 062578 dated 11th March, 1995 to the plaintiff at his residence on 11th March, 1995. Material allegations in the plaint were also denied. However, averments made in the plaint that the Courts were closed from 13th to 15th March, 1998 were not denied. In the replication to the written statement plaintiffs reiterated the submissions made in the plaint asserting that the cheque No. 062578 dated 11th March, 1995 was delivered to One plaintiff on 18th March, 1995 and thereafter the cheque was lodged in the Punjab National Bank for collection.

( 4 ) IT may be mentioned here that the plaintiff, out of abundant caution, also filled an application for condonation of delay under Section 5-of the Limitation Act, 1963 alongwith the suit stating that he was confined to bed from 8th March, 1996 to 15th March, 1998 and that immediately on reopening of the Courts the suit was filed on 16th March, 1998.

( 5 ) OIL the basis of the pleadings Trial Court framed the following preliminary issue: 1. Whether the suit is within the period of limitation? OPP

( 6 ) TRIAL Court further felt that the issue was purely legal and did not require any evidence. Arguments were heard on the preliminary issue. By the impugned judgment it was held that the suit was barred by limitation and the same was dismissed.-

( 7 ) WE have heard learned Counsel for the parties and been taken through record. Learned Counsel for the appellant argued that the Trial Court completely misread and misconstrued the material on record. It was argued that the