The acknowledgment of debt in communications does not extend the limitation period for filing a suit unless it resets the cause of action according to the Limitation Act.

JUDGMENT

Amit Mahajan, J.

1. The present appeal is filed challenging the judgment and decree dated 30.01.2021 (hereafter `impugned judgment and decree') passed by learned Commercial Court, Shahdara in Civil Suit (Comm) No. 206/2019 titled as M/s Sumaja Electro Infra Private Limited v/s M/s Rakman Industries Limited.

2. The learned Commercial Court, by way of impugned judgment and decree dated 30.01.2021 decreed the suit in favour of plaintiff (respondent herein) for an amount of Rs.22,46,172/-along with pendente-lite and future interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of filing of the case till the realisation of the amount along with costs of Rs.55,000/-and Rs.26,306/-.

3. The suit was filed by the plaintiff claiming that a sum of Rs.98,87,013.71/-was paid to the defendant as advance between the period 01.05.2014 to 16.12.2015 for supply of electric conductors. The defendant, however, supplied goods for a value of Rs.76,40,841/-and illegally withheld the sum of Rs.22,46,171/-; it had neither supplied goods against the said amount nor refunded the same.

4. In the suit, defendant was proceeded ex parte on 11.02.2020. The ex parte evidence was, thereafter, led by the plaintiff and the plaintiff tendered the affidavit by way of evidence of one Mr. Raghav Agrawal.

5. The learned Commercial Court accepted the statements affirmed in the affidavit for the reason that the same remain uncontroverted and held as under:

"15. The testimony of PW-1 remains uncontroverted, unrebutted and unchallenged as the defendant, which are ex parte, failed to appear before the Court and cross examine the witness. There is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of PW-1 who has reiterated, reasserted and reaffirmed all the facts, as elaborated in the plaint. All the relevant documents and relevant averments have been proved in the evidence and affidavit of Mr. Raghav Agrawal, Authorised Representative of plaintiff (PW-1).

16. Therefore, in view of the foregoing discussion, it appears the plaintiff has been able to successfully prove that the defendant is liable to pay the amount sought in the plaint. Accordingly, the suit of the plaintiff is hereby decreed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant. The plaintiff is entitled to recover an amount of Rupees Twenty Two Lakhs, forty Six thousand One Hundred Seventy Two Rupees Only (Rs.22,46,172/-) only along with pendent-lite and future interest @ 18% p.a. till realization of the amount.

17. Further, towards the costs and expenses, as the counsel for the plaintiff has filed the memo of fees (Rs.50,000/-+ Rs.5,000/-= Rs.55,000/-), the defendant is also liable to pay the same i.e. Rupees Fifty Five Thousand only (Rs.55,000/-only). Also as the counsel for the plaintiff has filed the memo of expenses memo of expenses (Rs.24,306/-+ Rs.2,000/-), the defendant is also liable to pay the other expenses i.e. Twenty Six Thousand Three Hundred and Six only (Rs.26,306/-only).

18. Accordingly, the case is hereby decreed in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant for an amount of Rupees Twenty Two Lakhs, Forty Six Thousand, One Hundred and Seventy Two Rupees Only (Rs.22,46,172/-) only along with pendent-lite and future interest @ 18% p.a. from the date of filing of the case till realization of the amount; along with costs of Rupees Fifty Five Thousand only (Rs.55,000/-only) and Rupees Twenty Six Thousand Three Hundred and Six only. (Rs.26,3