The legal point established is that an acknowledgment of debt within the limitation period provides a fresh period of limitation under Section 18 of the Limitation Act, but a conditional promise does not qualify as an acknowledgment under Section 25(3) of the Indian Contract Act.

The appellant calls in question the legality and correctness of the judgment and decree dated 23.03.2006 in A.S.No.46 of 2005 on the file of Principal District and Sessions Judge, Madurai.

2. The respondent had preferred a suit in O.S.No.151 of 2003 before the Second Additional Subordinate Judge, Madurai for a judgment and decree directing the appellant to pay a sum of Rs.1,15,000/- together with interest thereon at the rate of 18% per annum from 27.01.2003 till the date of payment and for other incidental reliefs.

3. In the plaint in O.S.No.151 of 2003, it was the case of the respondent that the appellant was an employee of the respondent industry and during the year 1996, the appellant had suffered from major cardiac arrest which required him to undergo a major by-pass surgery and to meet the medical expenses for such a major operation, the appellant and his wife, who was working in the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, pleaded with the management of the respondent to extend possible help. Accordingly, the respondent provided a loan to the appellant to the tune of Rs.1,30,000/- in two installments, one on 19.08.1996 and another on 21.08.1996. Subsequently, the appellant had repaid a sum of Rs.30,000/- on 12.09.1996 and with regard to the balance, the appellant had made assurances to make the payment within a period of one year. Since the appellant failed to pay the amount, the respondent as per letter dated 24.09.1999 wanted the appellant to pay the amount within three months and called upon the appellant to sign and send back the communication as a token of acceptance of the arrangement for repayment, and the same was signed and returned by the appellant. Subsequently, the respondent, as per notice dated 04.02.2000, claimed payment and in response to the said letter, the appellant, as per his reply letter dated 18.02.2000 acknowledged the liability, but pleaded for time on the ground that the medical reimbursement would be sanctioned to his wife by the first week of April 2000. Since the appellant was evading payment, the respondent again issued a letter dated 28.04.2000 reminding the appellant of his liability to pay the amount. Subsequently, another letter was sent to the appellant on 04.10.2001 and the said letter was replied by the appellant on 17.10.2001 expressing his gratitude, but seeking one month time to consult his lawyer for the purpose of sending a reply. This prompted the respondent to send a registered lawyer notice on 27.02.2002 calling upon the appellant to pay the amount and the same was replied by the appellant through his lawyer with all sorts of false and incorrect allegations, which made the respondent to file the suit.

4. The suit was resisted by the appellant and in the written statement filed by the appellant, it was his contention that he was an employee of the respondent and during the period of his employment, he had a very good relationship with the management and as a result, even after the retirement in the year 1995, the appellant was given an extension of service till September 1999. During the year 1996, he had undergone a by-pass surgery and at that time, only on account of compassionate ground and as a reward for his excellent service, the management of the respondent Industry offered to meet the expenditure required for the surgery. Since the appellant had spent only a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-, the balance of Rs.30,000/- was returned to the respondent. The appellant had denied the claim of loan as set up by the respondent. The appellant had also contested the suit on the ground that the very suit is barred by limitation and according to him, there was no acknowledgment of liability by the appellant so as to enable the respondent to claim the amount in spite of the fact that the suit claim is barred by limitation.

5. The trial Court, on the basis of the pleadings, framed necessary issues and answered those issues in favour of the appellant and dismissed the suit.

6. The judgment and decr