The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the limitation period for recovery of money under Article 1 of the Schedule of the Limitation Act and the requirement of a mutual account between the parties for the application of Article 1.

JUDGMENT :

YOGESH KHANNA, J.

CAV 222/2019

Counsel as above appears for the respondent/caveator. The caveat is discharged.

CM APPL.No.10258/2019

The reasons mentioned in the application the delay of 05 days in refiling of appeal stands condoned. The application stands disposed of.

CM APPL.No.10257/2019

Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions. The application stands disposed of.

RFA 178/2019

1. This appeal is preferred by the appellant/plaintiff against the judgment and decree dated 13.08.2018 passed by the learned Additional District Judge-12/Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi (hereinafter referred as the learned ‘Trial Court’) in CS No.16718/2016 whereby the suit of the appellant for recovery of Rs.14,24,739/- was dismissed post trial.

2. The brief facts are:-

(a) the appellant company is a duly incorporated company under the Companies Act and has filed this suit through Sh.Ram Kumar, its principal officer, who was authorised by a Board’s resolution dated 25.07.2006 to institute the suit and adduce evidence;

(b) it was the case of the appellant that defendant No.4 was running jewellery business for the last several years had introduced the defendants No.1 to 3 to the appellant stating inter alia they also are in the same business and would make the payment of goods, if supplied to them;

(c) in the month of April 2006, the defendants No.1 to 3 approached the appellant company and purchased 1 KG gold for consideration of Rs.9,21,462/- and assured they would deposit the payment in the account of appellant company as per trend and trade practice of the commodity market. The appellant issued the delivery letter to M/s Brink Arya India Private Limited on 25.04.2006 and instructed them to handover 1 KG gold to defendants No.1 to 3. The appellant company issued letter dated 25.04.2006 to defendants No.1 to 3 and requested/directed them to deposit the amount in account. The said letter was duly received by the defendants No.1 to 3;

(d) on 26.04.2008 the defendants No.1 to 3 received 1 KG gold from the appellant company through M/s Brink Arya India Private Limited and were to pay the consideration amount within 24 hours, but they failed to do so on alleging some compelling circumstances; and

(e) appellant company also approached the defendants No.4 and requested him to persuade the defendants No.1 to 3 to make the payment. Since the defendants No.1 to 3 failed to make the payment, the appellant lodged FIR with the police against them and only after the said complaint, the defendants No.1 to 3 started making the payment of outstanding dues in installments and paid three installments of Rs.20,000/-, Rs.6,000/- and Rs.5,000/- thus totaling Rs.31,000/- and thereafter did not pay a single penny.

3. The abovesaid suit for money recovery was filed on the grounds viz the parties had an open, mutual and current account and as such the limitation would start from the close of the financial year, per Article 1 of the Limitation Act.

4. In the written statement, besides various other objections, the objection qua limitation was taken stating inter alia the transaction of purchase was of dated 26.04.2006 and admittedly three payments totaling to Rs.31,000/- were made and the last of such payment was made on 08.08.2006, hence the suit filed on 04.11.2009 was beyond limitation.

5. Vide the impugned judgment dated 13.08.2018, the learned Trial Court held appellant company was though entitled to recovery of suit amount, but dismissed the suit on grounds of limitation and proper authorisation to institute the suit.

6. Amongst other, the issues No.3 & 5 as framed by learned Trial Court are relevant. Let met first take up the issue No.3 which says Whether the relief sought is time barred? OPD. This issue was decided by the learned Trial Court in the following manner:-

"16. ISSUE NO. 3

Whether relief sought is time barred? OPD. It is contended by counsel f