.1. The defendants and the plaintiff in O.S.No. 2859 of 1982 on the file of the First Additional City Civil Judge at Madras are the appellants and the respondent respectively in this appeal. In this judgment the parties to the appeal will hereinafter be referred to as the plaintiff and the defendants. The plaintiff filed the above suit against the defendants for recovering a sum of Rs.68, 993.22 together with interest at the rate of 18% p.a. on Rs.65, 551.74 from 12. 1981 till the date of payment and for costs. The defendants contested the suit and the learned trial Judge decreed the suit for a sum of Rs.62, 133.52 with interest at 18% per annum from 12. 1981 till date of realisation with proportionate costs. It is the correctness of that judgment that is being questioned in this appeal before this Court by the defendants.

.2. The brief facts on which the plaintiff went before the lower court seeking the decree are as follows:

.One of the incidents of the business of the plaintiff is waste paper, which he has been selling to third parties for price. The defendants have been purchasing waste papers from the plaintiff. The plaintiff and the defendants had a running account in respect of such dealings. The account maintained between the parties would contain a debit entry against the defendants and when payments come from the defendants, there will be credit entry in their favour. The defendants were making payments for the bills of the plaintiff with reasonable regularity. However from 110. 1981 the defendants stopped their transaction with the plaintiff including purchase of waste papers. As on 12. 1981 according to the accounts, a sum of Rs.65, 551.74 in due and payable by the defendants to the plaintiff in respect of the dealings referred to above. In spite of the demands the defendants did not clear off their outstandings. The plaintiff sent a notice dated 12. 1981 to the defendants demanding payment of money due with interest. The defendants did not reply. The cause of action for the suit arose in respect of the dealings between the parties on various dates prior to 12. 1981 and subsequently.

3. The defendants filed a written statement inter-alia contending as follows: “There is no running account between the parties. Every sale under a bill is a separate transaction and payments were made towards each bill independently. The defendants were purchasing waste papers even after 110. 1981 and the payments were made in full. The amount claimed in the plaint as the balance due as on 12. 1981 as per the accounts is false. The said averment is vague. The plaintiff is called upon to prove the balance due as on 12. 1981. The defendant sent a reply notice dated 1. 1982. Alo ng with the payment of every bill the plaintiff was also collecting an amount towards deposit to meet the sales tax liability, if demanded. So far the plaintiff had not paid any amount towards sales tax from and out of the amounts collected from the defendants. The sum so collected to meet the eventual sales tax liability is around rupees one lakh and therefore the plaintiff is bound to return the same to the defendants. In view of such a large of the defendants in the hands of the plaintiff, the plaint iff is not entitled to claim the amount stated in the plaint much less any other amount. The defendants are not liable to pay any interest. as there is no contract for payment of interest. The claim made in the suit is barred by limitation as there is no mutual or running account between the parties. The plaintiff is put to strict proof of all the transactions and establish that the suit is within time.”

This met with a reply statement from the plaintiff, which discloses following:

“The plaintiff reiterates that there was a running account. The defendant had not purchased waste papers after 110. 1981 for a very long period, but only recently they have started purchasing and the sale so effected from that time onwards is only on cash payment basis.