SHELAT, J.:- The suit from which this appeal arises was instituted by the respondent-plaintiff in the Court of the Civil Judge (S. D.) at Ahmedabad for recovering in all a sum of Rs. 17,131-86 p. due as per statement of accounts dated 27-10-1954 with future interest and costs of the suit, against the defendants-appellants.

2-5. xx xx xx

6. Two points have been urged by Mr. Mody, the learned advocate for the appellants, before us. The first is that the trial court has erred in holding that the amount due from defendant No. 1 the firm running in the name of Ramprasad Chhotalal was in the nature of a deposit so as to be governed for the purpose of limitation by Art. 60 of the Indian Limitation Act. According to him, it was merely a loan and not a deposit and would, therefore, be governed by Art. 57 or 59 of the Indian Limitation Act. As the period of Limitation in that event commences from the date when the loan is made, this suit filed after a period of three years provided for the same, would be barred by limitation. On the other hand, it is said that the cause of action for a claim for money deposited with the firm under Article 60 of the Indian Limita