(Prayer: Second Appeal has been filed under Section 100 of CPC against the Judgment and Decree dated 26.06.2015 passed in A.S. No. 35 of 2013 on the file of the I Additional District Court, Tirupur, reversing the Judgment and Decree dated 12.10.2013 passed in O.S. No. 247 of 2007 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Tirupur.)

1. Challenge in this second appeal is made to the Judgment and Decree dated 26.06.2015 passed in A.S. No. 35 of 2013 on the file of the I Additional District Court, Tirupur, reversing the Judgment and Decree dated 12.10.2013 passed in O.S. No. 247 of 2007 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Tirupur.

2. The second appeal has been admitted on the following substantial questions of law:

“(i) Whether the suit was barred by limitation?

(ii) Whether the judgment of the lower Appellate Court is vitiated in holding that the suit is barred by limitation even on the face of the clear and conscious acknowledgement of liability under Ex.A5 and consequential part-payment under Ex.A4?”

3. Considering the scope of the issues involved between the parties as regards the subject matter lying in a narrow compass, it is unnecessary to dwell into the facts of the case in detail.

4. The parties are referred to as per their rankings in the trial Court.

5. Suffice to state that the suit has been laid by the plaintiff against the defendants for recovery of money based on the accounts.

6. According to the plaintiff, the defendants had been engaged in credit dealings with the plaintiff for the purchase of Dyes and Chemicals and accordingly, it is contended that as per the books of accounts maintained in the regular course of business by the plaintiff, the defendants are liable to pay a sum of Rs.2,50,000/- as per the statement of account marked as Ex.A2 and after the payment of Rs. 1,00,000/- by the defendants by way of a pay order dated 01.09.2005, the defendants are liable to pay the suit amount with interest and inasmuch as the defendants had failed to pay the suit amount, despite the demands, according to the plaintiff, it has been necessitated to lay the suit against the defendants for appropriate reliefs.

7. The defendants, as such, had not disputed the business transaction, they had with the plaintiff qua the purchase of Dyes and Chemicals and from the defence version put forth by the defendants in the written statement and the evidence tendered by them, it has been admitted by the defendants that they had business transaction with the plaintiff. However, they would claim that the business transaction lasted only till 15.09.2001 and thereafter, there had been no business transaction between the parties.

8. According to the plaintiff, the defendants had accepted their liability by way of an acknowledgement dated 01.04.2005 and it is also stated by the plaintiff that the second defendant had issued a cheque dated 15.02.2005 for a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- payable to the plaintiff and as the cheque got bounced, the plaintiff had issued a notice for initiating auction against the defendants under the Negotiable Instruments Act and after the receipt of the said notice, the defendants by way of a reply notice dated 01.09.2005 had acknowledged their liability and in fact, they have also paid a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- by way of a pay order and hence, according to the plaintiff, the defendants are liable to pay the suit sum.

9. According to the defendants, inasmuch as the transaction, which they had with the plaintiff lasted only till 15.09.2001 and thereafter, they had not entered into any transaction with the plaintiff, as such, it is stated that the acknowledgement of the liability on the part of the defendants on 01.04.2005 is not true and further, it is also pleaded by the defendants that the suit laid by the plaintiff is barred by limitation as any acknowledgement of liability beyond the period of three years from 15.09.2001 would not save the suit from the point of limitation and accordingly, prayed for the dismissal of the plaint