Kamat, J.

This appeal is referred to us to consider the correctness of the decision of this court (Moidu v. Kerala State Electricity Board (1980 KLT 817)), in regard to the application of S.18 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The decision relates to a situation when a person makes admission of acknowledgement does not specify the quantum of liability whether it would operate as an acknowledgement in respect of specific sum. In other words when an acknowledgement relates to the part of the claim which is not specified, whether, without anything more, it would be available as an acknowledgement to save limitation under S.18 of the Limitation Act.

2. In the reference order, are referred certain other decisions:

i) Harrison & Crossfield Ltd. v. State of Kerala (1963 KLT 215).

ii) The decision of the Privy Council in Maniram v. Seth Rupchand (331a.165)

iii) Sitayya v. Rangareddi (I.L.R 10 Mad. 259)

iv) Jainaram v. Governor-General of India (A.I.R 1951 Cal. 462)

v) Krishna Kuruppu v. Raman Filial (XL TLR 200)

that are specifically referred to in the earlier decision of this Court-1963 K.L.T 215. We will have to consider the scope and application of S.18 of the Limitation Act, obviously i