The acknowledgment of debt by means of payment under Section 18 of the Limitation Act and the interpretation of the limitation period were central to the court's decision.

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.

C.M. Appl. No. 2484/2019 (for exemption)

1. Exemption allowed, subject to just exceptions.

C.M. stands disposed of.

C.M. Appl. No. 2482-83/2019 (for delay in filing and re-filing)

2. For the reasons stated in the applications the delays in filing and re-filing the appeal stand condoned, subject to just exceptions.

C.Ms. stand disposed of.

RFA No. 45/2019 and C.M. Appl. No. 2481/2019 (for stay)

3. This Regular First Appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is filed by the defendant no. 1 in the suit impugning the Judgment of the trial court dated 28.05.2018 by which the trial court has decreed the suit filed by the respondent no. 1/plaintiff for a sum of Rs. 19,46,286/- along with pendente lite interest at 12% per annum and future interest at 6% per annum on account of the appellant/defendant no. 1 having not paid for the electrical goods which were sold/supplied by the respondent no.1/plaintiff to the appellant/defendant no. 1.

4. The facts of the case are that respondent no. 1/plaintiff filed the subject suit for recovery of Rs. 19,46,286/- along with interest pleading that the appellant/defendant no.1 had bought electrical goods on credit basis from the respondent no. 1/plaintiff for the period from 19.08.2009 to 25.02.2009. In fact, the dealings had started between the parties in an earlier Financial Year starting from 01.04.2007. For the financial year from 01.04.2009 to 31.03.2010, a sum of Rs. 1,32,390/- was paid by three cheques with the last cheque being for a sum of Rs. 25,000/- vide cheque bearing no. 389490 dated 29.09.2009. The subject suit was filed within three years from 29.09.2009 i.e. on 19.09.2012, and therefore a money decree was prayed to be passed in favour of the respondent no. 1/plaintiff.

5. There were three defendants in the suit. The appellant/defendant no. 1 was the company, which had purchased goods from the respondent no.1/plaintiff, and it is only against the appellant/defendant no. 1 that the money decree is passed, and the money decree is not passed against the other two defendants who were rightly held to not be liable, once it was the company which had purchased the goods.

6. In the written statement, appellant/defendant no. 1 did not dispute that there were transactions entered into between the respondent no.1/plaintiff as seller and the appellant/defendant no. 1 as the buyer. It was, however, denied that any payment was made by the appellant/defendant no. 1 for Rs. 25,000/- on 29.09.2009 as it was pleaded that it was in fact the respondent no. 2/defendant no. 2 who had made this payment out of his sole proprietorship concern of M/s Pieco International Engineering Company and not for the goods purchased by the sole proprietorship firm the appellant/defendant no. 1 M/s Pieco India Engineering Company. It was thus pleaded that the payment of Rs. 25,000/- made by the sole proprietorship concern of the respondent no. 2/defendant no. 2 was for the business of the sole proprietorship concern with the appellant/defendant no. 1, and this payment therefore made by the respondent no. 2/defendant no. 2 had nothing to do with the dues of the appellant/defendant no. 1 and hence the suit was barred by limitation. It was also the stand of the appellant/defendant no.1 that goods were in fact purchased on credit basis, however all the payments for the goods purchased stood made to the respondent no. 1/plaintiff as per the statement of account of the appellant/defendant no. 1 in its book of accounts. The suit was thus prayed to be dismissed.

7. Trial court framed the following issues :-

“1. Whether the suit of plaintiff is barred by limitation? OPD

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount from the defendants? OPP

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any pendente lite and future interest? If so, at what rate? OPP

4. Relief.”

8. Parties thereafter led evidence. Whereas the respondent no. 1/plaintiff got examined the Authorized Representative of it