Concurrent judgments of courts below relied on.

M. Thanikachalam, J.

The defendant in O.S.No.2770 of 1984 on the file of the City Civil Court, Chennai, who suffered a decree for payment of money concurrently, is the appellant.

2. The respondent in this L.P.A. as plaintiff had filed a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.1 lakh with interest thereon at 24% per annum from the date of the plaint, till the date of realisation, contending that as per the terms of the contract, the defendant/appellant has not repaid a sum of Rs.51,750.21, being the balance of 5% payment and also the security deposit of Rs.49,161.50, aggregating to a sum of Rs.1,00,911.71 and that despite the repeated demands and notice, the defendant failed to pay the same and therefore, restricting the claim to Rs.1 lakh, they are entitled to the suit claim with interest thereon at 24% per annum.

3. The appellant/defendant repudiated the claim of the plaintiff stating, that the plaintiff is not entitled to recover a sum of Rs.51,750.21 and Rs,49,161.50 even as per the agreement, whereas the plaintiff alone is liable to pay the defendant the cost of 46 Air Tickets, which the defendant had incurred on behalf of the plaintiff viz., Rs.2,95,200/- that the interest claimed is also excessive, that after deducting or adjusting the suit claim, the plaintiff has to pay a sum of Rs.1,95,000/- and that the claim in any event is barred by limitation.

4. The learned XII Assistant Judge, the City Civil Court, while evaluating the materials placed before him, came to the conclusion, that even in the absence of any specific agreement, for the payment of return Air Tickets, the defendant is liable to pay the charges of the Air tickets, to the employees of the plaintiff, that the defendant is not entitled to adjust or set off the cost of the Air Tickets, for the suit claim, that the suit is not barred by limitation and that the plaintiff is entitled to a decree, as prayed for. In this way, concluding so, a decree has been granted on 27.2.1987, which was in challenge before this Court in A.S.No.1061/87.

5. The learned Judge, considering the rival contentions of the parties, as well as considering the effect of agreement entered between the parites, took the view, that the plaintiff is entitled to a sum of Rs.1,00,911.71, which is restricted to Rs,1 lakh, that since there had been correspondences between the parties, time would start running, for the purpose of limitation, only at the final denial of the claim and in this view, the suit is not barred by limitation. The learned judge unable to take different view, on the basis of the available materials, dismissed the appeal with costs throughout, confirmed the decree and judgment passed by the trial Court in O.S.No.2770 of 1984 on the file of the City Civil Court, Chennai, which is under challenge in this appeal.

6. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. K. Muni and the learned counsel for the respondent, Mrs. Anitha Thomas.

7. The learned counsel for the appellant stressed the only point of limitation to non suit the plaintiff, though many defences had been raised, in the written statement, which is opposed by the learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff, contending, that there was a clear acknowledgment of the debt, from which date, within three years, the suit has been filed and therefore, as held by the courts below, there is no bar for maintianing the suit on the basis of limitation. It is the further submission of the learned counsel for the plaintiff, that the plaintiff/ respondent is entitled to claim interest at 24% per annum which is not challenged in the appeal. From the submission made by either counsel, the only point that arises for consideration in this Letters Patent Appeal is,

"Whether the suit is barred by limitation?"

Point:

7. Based on the tender issued by BHEL, Trichy, for providing service for erection, testing and commissioning of 1 x 65 mw Boiler, an agreement was entered dated 12.12.1978 between the parties, which is exhibited as Ex.A3. In th