The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the provisions of the Limitation Act to calculate the limitation period for filing the suit.

THAKUR, J.

( 1 ) THIS is a plaintiff's appeal arising out of a suit for recovery of money which the court below has dismissed as barred by limitation.

( 2 ) CERTAIN banking facilities were extended by the plaintiff-appellant to M/s Satish Vaid and Company, a partnership concern against documents which the borrower and the guarantors executed in favour of the bank. These facilities appear to have been renewed and the credit limits increased in the year 1986 on execution of a fresh set of documents. In the year 1987, the partnership was converted into a private limited company and an intimation to that effect sent to the bank with a request that the existing liabilities be transferred to the company. On execution of the necessary documents by the managing Director of the respondent company and upon hypothecation of the stock in trade and the shares standing in the name of defendants No. 2 to 5 who stood as personal guarantors for the repayment of the outstanding amount, the liabilities were shifted from the partnership concern to the company. This included an open cash credit facility which was renewed upon execution of fresh loan documents by the company in favour of the bank. According to the plaintiff-appellant, the charge over the hypothecated stocks and the book debts of respondent company were also got registered with the Registrar of Companies in Delhi and Haryana.

( 3 ) BY a letter dated 28/10/1992, defendant-respondent No. 2 herein appears to have offered the payment of the outstanding dues which offer was repeated vide letter dated 20/9/1993. The bank accepted the said offer and agreed to settle the claim for a sum of Rs. 4,41,249. 35. Different amounts were thereafter paid from time to time in liquidation of the said amount. Since the balance was not arranged by the defendants-respondents, the plaintiff-bank withdrew from the settlement and started charging interest @16. 5% per annum on the balance that remained due. The account was eventually declared as a non-performing asset as on 7/4/1994 with a debit balance against the respondent of a sum of Rs. 6,39,865. 05. Adding interest to the said amount for the period 1/4/1994 to 19/1/1999 and after giving adjustment for all payments received by the bank, a sum of Rs. 9,88,015. 00 remained due against the defendants. This liability was, according to the plaintiff, acknowledged by the defendants in terms of acknowledgement of debt and security confirmation letters furnished to the plaintiff-bank from time to time, the last out of which marked Ex. PW1/28 was executed on 20/1/1996. The failure of the defendants to pay the outstanding amount led the plaintiff-bank to file a suit for recovery of the said amount claiming interest pendente lite and till realisation at the stipulated rate of 16. 5% p. a. and costs etc.

( 4 ) THE defendants did not appear to contest the suit despite service of summons upon them. The suit was, therefore, tried ex parte but dismissed by the judgment and decree impugned in the present appeal on the ground that the same was barred by limitation. The trial court held that in terms of a statement of account marked Ex. PW1/29, there was a debit balance of rs. 4,38,615. 70 as on 10/4/1995 which amount was acknowledged by defendant No. 2 on behalf of defendant No. 1 company. Having said so, the court examined the question of limitation and came to the conclusion that the acknowledgement of debt marked Ex. PW1/28 had actually been executed on 20/1/1996 and not on 28/1/1996 as alleged in the plaint and the affidavit filed on behalf of the plaintiff. The suit filed by the appellant on 21/1/1999 was, on that basis, held to be barred by limitation as the same had been presented after more than three years reckoned from 20/1/1996. The present appeal, as noticed earlier, assails the correctness of the said judgment and decree.

( 5 ) WE have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the record. The respondents have failed to appear even in the prese