An acknowledgment of liability can constitute a written contract for the recovery of an existing debt if it contains an absolute unqualified present liability with an obligation to repay it in future, and if it is signed by the party to be bound.

( 1 ) -IN this revision petition the primary question is whether a suit under Order 37 Civil Procedure Code. could be filed on the basis of an "acknowledgment".

( 2 ) THE plaintiff respondent filed of suit of recovery for a sum of Rs. 49,956 along with interest on account of loan advanced and written acknowledgment of liability by the defendant.

( 3 ) ACCORDING to the case of the piainiff the respondent, gave a statement of account indicating balance amount of Rs. 59. 859. 50 lor the financial year 1986-87. the respondent acknowledged the same by signing it. Interest of Rs. 7,422. 50 was paid in July 1987 and Rs. 8,081 in April 1989 by the petitioner. The defendant made another written acknowledgment of the amount payable by it to the plaintiff showing that Rs. 75,363 was due against the defendant on 31 March, 1989. On demand the defendant paid Rs. 20,500 on 29th July, 1989 leaving a balance of Rs. 42,927. 50. The petitioner claimed this amount along with interest at the rate of 18 per cent from 29 July, 1989 till 30th June, 1990 and filed a suit under Order 37 Civil Procedure Code.

( 4 ) THE acknowledgment has not been disputed by the petitioner/ defendant except by barely saying that the petitioner has filed the present suit on false documents. The learned counsel for the petitioner Shri G. L. Rawal has challenged the impugned order dismissing application of leave to defend and decreeing the suit on the ground that the suit on the basis of acknowledgment is not maintainable under Order 37 CPC. The learned Additional District Judge did not consider the objections on merits about the payments made by the defendant/petitioner to third party on behalf of the plaintiff/ respondent.

( 5 ) AS regards first contention, learned counsel for the petitioner contention, learned counsel for the petitioner contends on the basis of Shri J. S. Sood Vs. Mrs. Premlata Mehta and Am. ILR 1984 (2) (Delhi) 716 (1) that suit under Order 37 Civil Procedure Code. is not maintainable on the basis of an acknowledgment.

( 6 ) BEFORE proceeding further it would be relevant to reproduce Rule I of Order 37 Civil Procedure Code. It reads as under : Subject to the provisions of sub-rule (1), the Order applies to the following classes of suits, namely :- (a) suits upon biils of exchange, bundles and promissory notes; (b) suits in which the plaintiff seeks only to recover a debt or liquidated demand in money payable by the defendant, with or without interest arising,- (i) on a written contract: or (ii) on an enactment, where the sum sought to be recovered is a fixed sum of money or in the nature of a debt other than a penalty; or (iii) on a guarantee, where the claim against the principal is in respect of a debt or liquidated demand only. " 3210 HCD/97-8

( 7 ) IN this light it is required to be seen whether the present suit relates to recovery of "debt. " arising out of a "written contract or not?"

( 8 ) BLACK s Law Dictionary (6th Ed.) defines "debt" as under :

"a sum of money due by certain and express agreement. A specified sum of money owing to one person from another, including not only obligations of debtor to pay but right of creditor to receive and enforce payment. State v. Ducey 25 Ohio App. 2d 50, 266 N. E. 2d. 233, 235. Liability on a claim. Bankruptcy Code $ 101. A fixed and certain obligation to pay money or some other valuable thing or things, either in the present or in the future. In a still more general sense, that which is due from one person to another, whether money, goods or services. "

( 9 ) IN Food Corporation of India Vs. Bal Kishan Garg. (2) 24 (1982) Delhi Law Times 167 a Division Btnch of this Court considered the requisites of debt in connection with the suit for recovery of the price of goods. It was held to be maintainable under Order 37 C. P. C. by treating the unpaid pries as debt In regard to "debt" following observations of the Division Bench of this Court in para 7 are relevant here: 7. What then, is a debt? Rely