JUDGMENT :

K.S. Jhaveri, J.

By way of present appeal, the appellant - original plaintiff has challenged the judgment dated 19.12.1984 passed by the City Civil Judge, 5th Court, City Civil Court, Ahmedabad, in Civil Suit No. 82 of 1981 whereby the learned City Civil Judge dismissed.

2. The facts in brief, as emerging from the record, are as under.

2.1 The appellant, original plaintiff, had filed a suit being Civil Suit No. 82 of 1981 before the City Civil Court, Ahmedabad against the respondents, original defendants, praying for recovery of Rs. 10,302.69 paise consisting of Rs. 5,407.01 paise as the principal amount due on 02.06.1978 and Rs. 4,895.68 paise by way of interest from 18-1-1973 till 31-12-1980.

2.2 The trial Court, after considering the entire evidence on record, dismissed the suit of the appellant - plaintiff vide the impugned judgment. Hence, this appeal.

3. Heard Mr.A.C.Gandhi, learned counsel for the appellant. Though served, nobody appears on behalf of the respondents.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the Court below has erred in holding that the letter exh.35 dated 19-9-1975 is not an accounts stated under Article 26 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act. It is also submitted that the Court below has erred in holding that the last instalment of the loan given to the respondents No. 1 an 2 would fall due by 30-3- 1972. The Court below has also erred in not holding that the last instalment would be due on 01.05.1973 as stated in plaint para-6. It is further submitted that the Court below ought to have held that as the last instalment was due on 01.05.1973, the letter exh.35 dated 19.09.1975 was an acknowledgement of debt made by the respondents No. 1 and 2 within a period of limitation. Therefore, the benefit of Section 18 of the Limitation Act should be given to the plaintiff. The Court below has also erred in holding that because it was a loan payable on demand, the period of limitation would start to run from the date when loan was made i.e. 30.10.1969. It is submitted that said letter exh.35 constitutes a fresh promise under Section 25(3) of the Contract. It is further submitted that the Court below has overlooked the fact that there is a credit entry of Rs. 100/- dated 31.05.1976. Learned advocate for the appellant has lastly submitted that in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, the present appeal deserves to be allowed and the impugned judgment requires to be quashed and set aside in the interest of justice.

5. The Court below has discussed every aspects and given reasons in detail, in paras-8 and 9 which are reproduced hereunder.

"8. The controversy has mainly centered around this issue, the plaintiff has one hand contending that the period of limitation was extended by acknowledgements and the defendants 1 and 2 on the other alleging that the suit is barred by limitation because the earliest acknowledgement was beyond the period of limitation.

9. At the time of the arguments, it was contended by Mr. A.M. Bhatt the learned advocate appearing for the plaintiff that in the instant case the provisions of Article 26 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act should be applied and the letter dated 19-9-1975 which is at exh.35 which was written by the defendant No. 2 as the sole proprietor of the defendant no. 1 to the plaintiff should be taken as accounts stated in writing signed by the defendant. Mr. Bhatt argued that because the accounts were stated on 19-9-1975 as stated above the period of limitation should be computed from that date and not from any earlier date. There is no dispute about the fact that the last transaction prior to 19-9-1975 was of 31st August, 1970 as can be seen from the certified accounts which are at exh.45. The certified copy of account exh.45 reflects an entry dated 31st August, 1970 of Rs. 128/- which is a debit entry showing withdrawal of that amount. All the entries which follow are debit entries for the interest amount due from time to time in this