G.S. Sistani, J. Oral

1. Present appeal has been filed by the appellant under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure (herein after referred as `CPC') against the judgment and decree dated 27.09.2006 passed by the learned trial court dismissing the suit of the appellant as barred by limitation.

2. The brief facts necessary to be noticed for the disposal of the present appeal are that the plaintiff (appellant herein) was dealing in manufacture and sale of different types of auto parts, accessories and PV foams and the like. The defendants (respondents herein) purchased PV foams from the appellant through various bills as per their requirements and the supplies were made accordingly. The total supplies made by the appellant to the respondents amounted to Rs. 25,46,030.56 P out of which the respondents had paid an amount of Rs. 21,51, 786.30 P leaving an outstanding amount of Rs. 3,94,244.26P. Despite service of a legal notice dated 01.08.1988, the respondents failed to pay the outstanding amount and thus, the appellant was forced to file a suit for recovery of Rs. 3,94,244.26 P along with interest @ 23% per annum w.e.f 26.09.1985 according to the agreement , market custom and the prevailing usage. The total recoverable amount from the respondent @23% interest is Rs. 7,35,314.26 P.

3. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties and material on record, the learned trial court framed the following issues on 30.01.1996:

1.

Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendant purchased PV Foams worth Rs. 3,94,244.26 P as averred in the plaint para 3?

2.

Whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest @ 23% per annum as averred in plaint para 4?

3.

Whether the suit claim or any part of it barred by limitation?

4.

Whether the defendants prove that the plaintiff is not entitled to the difference in freight charges amounting to Rs. 1, 11,625.20 P?

5.

Whether the defendants prove that the amount of Rs. 5,93,039.77 P are liable to be adjusted as alleged extra payment, as averred in para 6 of the written statement?

6.

To what relief, if any, the plaintiff is entitled to?

7.

What order and decree?

4. Evidence was led by both the parties. The plaintiff (appellant herein) examined PW 1 Sh. Amit Jain, Managing Director of the appellant company whereas the defendants (respondents herein) have examined DW 1 Sh. Devi Dass Kanhaiya, Senior Store Officer of the respondent at Aurangabad. The learned trial court, while deciding issue Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5 in the favour of the appellant, dismissed the suit of the appellant on the ground that the suit was barred by limitation. This has led to the filing of the present appeal. The counsel for the appellant has restricted his prayer with regard to the issue of limitation alone.

5. The counsel for the appellant submits that judgment of the trial court on the issue of limitation is contrary to the facts and law. The counsel further submits that the learned trial court has failed to appreciate that the minutes of the meeting dated 19.03.1987 (exhibited at Ex. P4) were duly signed by the representatives of the respondents as well as of the appellant. It is further contended that the aforesaid minutes were admitted by the respondents during the admission denial of the documents and it amounts to acknowledgment of liability by the respondents within the meaning of sections 18 and 19 of the Limitation Act which is sufficient to extend the period of limitation.

6. The counsel for the appellant, while drawing the attention of this court to the contents of para 4 of Ex P4, further submits that the contents of para 4 makes it clear that the respondents have unequivocally acknowledged that the respondents have to settle a claim of the plaintiff appellant after due verification thereby admitting the jural relationship of debtor and creditor between the appellant and the respondents. It is contended that trial court has erred in holding that the expression `after due verification' imposes a condition to the claim of the plaintiff. The counsel su