1. This Civil Revision Petition by the defendant in a Small Cause suit is directed against the decree passed against him for recovery of a sum of money alleged to be due as the price of goods sold. The plaintiffs' case is that the defendant was getting goods on credit from the shop belonging to Neelakantan Nanoo, the deceased husband of the 1st plaintiff and father of plaintiffs 2 to 5. The balance due on 11.2.1953 was Rs. 75-12-2. The plaintiffs as heirs of Neelakantan Nanoo sued for recovery of the same. The defendant denied the transaction alleged in the plaint. According to him the transactions were closed before 1952. There was a further contention that the suit was barred by limitation. The learned Munsiff found that the defendant was getting goods on credit as alleged by the plaintiffs. The question of limitation was not decided. The suit was accordingly decreed in terms of the plaint.

2. The two points pressed by the petitioner are: (i) that the plaint transaction is not proved, and (ii) that the suit is barred by limitation. As regards the first point the learned Munsiff believed Pw.1 and disbelieved the defendant who was examined as Dw.1. I do not think it prop