Aruna Suresh, J. (Oral)-Respondent filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 2,03,000/- against the appellants on the grounds that there were business dealings between the parties and an account was maintained by the respondent for the said business transactions. Appellants had been making payment m account on different dates. After adjusting part payments, a sum of Rs. 1,35,785/ - remained payable, which appellants failed to pay despite repeated requests. Appellants had been issuing various cheques of different amount which on presentation were dishonoured. Appellants contested the suit and one of the defence raised by the appellants was that the suit was barred by period of limitation Trial Court framed following issue beside others:

"Whether the suit is barred by the law of limitation? -OPD"

2. After appreciating evidence of the parties and statement of accounts filed by respondents Counsel. Trial Court concluded that the suit was filed on 20th May, 2005 and sales made by the respondent to the appellants within three years prior to filing of the suit were within period of limitation and the sales made prior to said three years were barred by period of limitation In view of this, Trial Court passed a decree for Rs. 9,962/- only with interest.

3. Appellate Court vide impugned judgment and decree dated 24th January, 2000 reversed the findings of the Trial Court on the said issue and concluded that suit of the respondent was within the period of limitation as payments were made from time-to-time and respondent was within his right to adjust the payments against previous dues, which he did as reflected in statement of accounts and passed a decree for the amount claimed in the suit with interest.

4. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree of the Appellate Court, this second appeal has been filed invoking Section 100, CPC.

5. Learned Counsel for the appellants has submitted that Appellate Court went wrong in holding that the suit was within period of limitation specially when respondent failed to prove that account is on a running basis, he was not entitled to seek recourse to the provisions of Section 60 of the Indian Contract Act (hereinafter referred to as Act) by-passing the provisions of Section 50 of the Act. He further argued that Appellate Court did not consider that Section 19 of the Limitation Act was not attracted to the facts and circumstances of the case whereas Article 14 of the Limitation Act has application in the present case as payment was made on 2nd August, 2002 against a specific debt amount amongst many distinct debts and therefore, payment made on 2nd August, 2002 did not extend the period of limitation.

6. Learned Counsel for the appellants also urged that appellants have been making payment against specific bills and, therefore, under the circumstances a substantial question of law arises for consideration whether this suit falls within the ambit of provisions of Section 59 of the Indian Contract Act or under Section 60 of the Indian Contract Act read with Section 19 of the Limitation Act:

7. Learned Counsel for the respondent while refuting submission of the learned Counsel for the appellants has argued that Respondent was maintaining a running account and payments were being received in account and not against any specific bill. Some of the cheques were dishonoured against which payments were made by the appellants specifically whereas some of the dishonoured cheques were still lying with the respondent against which no payment was made by the appellants, he submitted that therefore Appellate Court rightly held that suit was within period of limitation and passed a decree in favour of the respondent. He emphasized that under the facts and circumstances of the case, no substantial question of law need formulation when the appellate Court had decided the question of limitation on facts of the case.

8. There is no dispute that parties were having business transactions for quite some time and appellants had been pu