REVA KHETRAPAL, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order of the learned Additional District Judge dated 6th December, 1996 decreeing the suit of the respondent in the sum of Rs.1,48,240/- with costs and interests.

2. The predecessor-in-interest of the respondents, late Shri Hari Kishan Gupta, as proprietor of Gupta Potteries had filed a suit for recovery of money against the appellant on the following facts.

3. Shri Hari Kishan Gupta, proprietor of M/s. Gupta Potteries was engaged in the manufacture and sale of fire bricks, fire clay, bentonite, fire cement, tiles, B.P. Sets, etc. and on the request of the appellant had started supplying B.P. Sets, tiles and fire bricks from 1986 to the appellant. The appellant in lieu of the goods supplied was making part-payments from time to time, which were duly entered in the account of the appellant maintained by the respondent in his books of account. The appellant was also issuing C Forms in the prescribed format of the Sales Tax Department to the respondent. On 28.05.1988, allegedly a sum of Rs.95,335.28 was due from the appellant as per the books of account maintained by the respondent in the regular course of business. The appellant allegedly did not pay the aforesaid amount despite repeated requests made in this regard and a legal notice dated 23.04.1991 served upon it. The respondent accordingly instituted a suit for the recovery of the balance amount claiming interest @ 18% per annum in accordance with custom, usage and trade practice, that is to say, Rs.95,335.28 as principal and Rs.52,210.74 as interest up to the date of the filing of the suit.

4. The appellant was proceeded ex parte in the suit on 28.02.1994 when it failed to appear despite service of summons upon it. An application moved under Order IX Rule 7 of the CPC by the appellant was dismissed by order dated 22nd May, 1995. The appellant preferred Civil Revision No.670/1995 before the High Court, which too was dismissed by a detailed order dated 07.08.1996.

5. The sum and substance of the order dismissing the Civil Revision Petition was that the entire progress of the suit had been thwarted by the appellant by his persistent defaults and the appellant could not be allowed to take advantage of its own wrong. The appellant, therefore, without filing any written statement joined the proceedings at the stage of arguments, after the respondent had led ex parte evidence by examining himself and proving the documents in support of his case. The hearing of the suit culminated in the passing of the decree in favour of the respondent and against the appellant in the sum of Rs.1,48,240/-with costs and interest @ 12% per annum on the principal amount of Rs.95,335/- from the date of the suit till realisation.

6. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and decree, the present appeal has been preferred by the appellant, which was admitted to hearing as far back as on April 29, 1997. In the meanwhile, the respondent died without reaping the benefits of the decree and was substituted by his legal representatives, the respondents No.1 to 6 herein. Initially, the respondent No.1 contested the appeal, but subsequently chose not to appear. The respondents No.2 to 6 did not contest the appeal despite service effected upon them. Notice of default was also served on the counsel for the respondents, but to no avail. Accordingly, the appellant through his counsel Mr. Keshal Dayal, Senior Advocate was heard and the records perused by me.

7. Mr. Keshal Dayal, the learned senior counsel for the appellant at the outset contended that the suit was not maintainable in view of the bar of limitation imposed by Section 3 of the Limitation Act, 1963. He submitted that the respondent himself had pleaded in the suit filed by him that as per the books of account, duly kept and maintained by him, on 28.05.1988, a sum of Rs.95,335.28 was due and payable by the appellant to the respondent towards the price of the goods purchased by the