JUDGMENT :

J.B. Pardiwala, J.

1. By this application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the applicant (judgment-debtor) calls in question the legality and validity of the order passed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Rajkot, dated 20th August 2019 below Exhibits 11 and 15 respectively in the Execution Petition No. 10 of 2019.

2. The facts giving rise to this petition may be summarised as under:

3. The respondent herein - original plaintiff instituted the Special Summary Suit No. 23 of 2014 against the applicant herein in the court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Rajkot, to recover an amount of Rs. 1,12,26,500.00 (Rupees One Crore Twelve Lakh Twenty-six Thousand and Five Hundred only). The applicant herein prayed for grant of leave to defend. The same was declined by the court below. The Principal Senior Civil Judge, Rajkot, proceeded to pass the money decree. This decree came to be challenged by the applicant herein before this Court by instituting the First Appeal No. 1730 of 2015. Along with the First Appeal, a Civil Application No. 9634 of 2015 also came to be preferred for stay of the operation, implementation and execution of the money decree. On 29th January 2016, a coordinate bench of this Court passed the following order:

"ORDER IN FIRST APPEAL:

Heard learned counsels for the parties. The appeal deserves to be admitted as the counsel for the appellant has raised questions qua the limitation and the amount in question not being paid and not agreed between the parties and interest accumulated thereon is concerned. Hence, Admit.

ORDER IN CIVIL APPLICATION:

1. The Court has heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the papers. The counsel for the applicant has contended that the entire suit was based upon the ledger account as the invoices and purchases orders were only 4 to 5 produced. This being not in consonance with the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, especially Sections 65B and 34, the Appeal in fact, deserves to be not only admitted but allowed.

2. The second contention was raised in respect of suit being time barred as the amount claimed was ranging from the period upto the period which according to him had rendered the entire claim being barred by law. The learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the following decisions in support of said contention:

i. Judgment reported in AIR 1977 SC 577 in case of M/s. Mechalec Engineers and Manufacturers Vs. M/s. Basic Equipment Corporation;

ii. Judgment reported in AIR 2008 SC 1117 in case of Neebha Kapoor Vs. Jayantilal Khandwala and Ors;

iii. Judgment reported in 2002 (2) GLH 673, in case of State Bank of Saurashtra Vs. M/s. Ashit Shipping Services (P) Ltd. & Anr.;

3. Learned counsel appearing for the applicant further submitted that the so called admission which is said to be held-out against the defendant cannot be said to be an admission. On its close perusal, the E-mail is said to have been dated 28.5.2014, which was admittedly sent after the limitation was over and looking to Section 18 of the same, it could not have been said to have been so, as to extend the limitation period.

4. Shri Nilesh Pandya, learned advocate appearing for the respondent contended that the leave to defend was filed beyond the period of its filing. The counsel for respondent has invited this Court's attention to leave to defend, more particularly page nos. 58 and 61 and indicated that in light of these averments, the admission is clearly emerging so far as the debt is concerned, coupled therewith, the contents of E-mail is required to be noted, in which, schedule for payment was mentioned, couple with request for bearing with the defendant, in view of market situation.

5. We are of the considered view that as the Appeal is admitted, the question of granting of interim relief is required to be addressed. Looking to averments made in leave to defend application and E-mail, the amount of Rs. 43,40,061/-, can be said to be an admitted amount, which is required to be