The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963, specifically Article 113 and Section 18, in determining the limitation period for filing a suit for recovery.

1. The appellant/plaintiff is aggrieved by the judgment dated 29.8.2014, passed by the trial court dismissing its suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.3,64,730/-filed against the respondent/defendant for the value of goods supplied.

2. Though the respondent/defendant has been duly served in the appeal, none has appeared on his behalf.

3. Before considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellants a glance at the facts of the case is considered necessary. The appellant/plaintiff had instituted the subject suit against the respondent/ defendant on 14.5.2008, seeking recovery of a sum of Rs.3,64,730/-on the plea that there was a running account between the parties maintained in the normal course of business and the respondent/defendant had been purchasing clothes from the appellant/plaintiff from time to time, commencing from the year 2004 and onwards. The bills raised by the appellant/plaintiff for the sale of the goods to the respondent/defendant have been set out in para 4 of the plaint, starting from the first bill raised on 18.9.2004 and ending on 1.9.2005. Claiming that the respondent/defendant had issued a cheque for a sum of Rs.10,000/-in favour of the appellant/plaintiff on 10.9.2005, towards part payment of the goods purchased and thereby, had acknowledged the outstanding bills for which payment had yet to be made, it has been pleaded in the plaint that in the year ending on 31.3.2005, the respondent/defendant owed a sum of Rs.2,22,396/-to the appellant/plaintiff. Adding to the principal amount, interest @ 24% p.a. which would work out to a sum of Rs.1,42,334/-, the appellant/plaintiff had filed a suit for recovery of Rs.3,64,730/-against the respondent/defendant.

4. On being served in the suit, the respondent/defendant had entered appearance and filed a written statement taking several pleas therein, both on facts and in law. After completion of pleadings in the suit, issues were framed on 13.2.2009. Prior thereto, the respondent/defendant had admitted several documents filed by the appellant/plaintiff, including the invoices raised on him and the fact that he had issued a cheque dated 10.9.2005 for a sum of Rs.10,000/-in favour of the appellant/plaintiff. To prove its case, the appellant/plaintiff had produced two witnesses including the Manager of the company, PW-1 and the Head Accountant, PW-2. The respondent/defendant had cross-examined PW-1, he failed to cross-examine PW-2 though he was granted several opportunities to do so. Vide order dated 17.10.2012, the right of the respondent/defendant to cross-examine the appellant/plaintiff’s witnesses was closed. On his part, the respondent/defendant failed to file his affidavit by way of evidence despite repeated opportunities grated to him; nor did he lead any evidence. Finally, vide order dated 3.12.2013, the right of the respondent/defendant to lead the evidence was closed and the suit was directed to be listed for arguments on 1.2.2014.

5. The trial court record reveals that at the request of the counsel for the appellant/plaintiff, the case was adjourned for arguments on 1.2.2014 to 9.4.2012. On 9.4.2014, the Presiding Judge was on leave and the case was adjourned to 2.7.2014. On 2.7.2014, part arguments were advanced on behalf of the appellant/plaintiff and the matter was adjourned to 28.7.2014 for further arguments. On 28.7.2014, none had appeared for the appellant/ plaintiff and the case was adjourned to 29.8.2014 for re-arguments. On 29.8.2014, the impugned judgment was pronounced whereunder, the suit was dismissed as being barred by limitation. By a separate order passed on the same day, which mentions that none was present on behalf of the appellant/plaintiff, the learned trial court had recorded that by a separate judgment dictated and announced in the open court, the appellant/plaintiff’s suit had been dismissed.

6. The main grievance raised on behalf of the appellant/plaintiff is that the impugned judgment came to be passed on a date when non