Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N. ANAND VENKATESH, J.
M/s. Vaishnovi Infrastructure Engineering Private Limited, Rep. by its Director A. Arulraj - Appellant
Versus
M/s. Infra Engineers India, Rep. by its Proprietrix, Vaishnavi & Another - Respondent
C.S. No. 646 of 2015
Decided On : 07-01-2022
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order VII Rule 1 - Limitation Act, 1963 - Section 18 - Suit has been filed for recovery of money from defendants along with interest - Defendants have questioned very maintainability of suit on ground that it is barred by limitation - Defendant has sought for dismissal of suit on ground of mis-joinder of parties, since defendant during relevant point of time was not involved in any transaction - Defendants have also denied their liability and have sought for dismissal of suit - Plaintiff submitted that defendants did not choose to enter witness box and substantiate their defence and hence, an adverse inference must be drawn against them to effect that they have admitted liability - Defendants have established their defence on ground of limitation by cross-examining witnesses on side of plaintiff - If Exhibit cannot be considered as an evidence, suit is hopelessly barred by limitation, since last sales invoice and suit itself was filed beyond period of three years - Whether defendants have discharged their liability - Whether suit is barred by limitation – Held, Section 18 of Limitation Act, 1963 deals with acknowledgment of a liability - An acknowledgment is an admission by writer that there is a debt owed by him either to receiver of letter or to some other person on whose behalf letter is received - In order to constitute a valid acknowledgment, acknowledgment must be in respect of a liability and it must be made before expiry of period of limitation and it should be in writing and signed by party against whom such a liability is claimed - Requirements of Section 18 of Limitation Act has to be strictly satisfied since every acknowledgment extends period of limitation for a further period of three years from date of acknowledgment - Court holds that suit filed by plaintiff is hopelessly barred by limitation - Suit dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
Prayer: Civil Suit has been filed under Order IV, Rule 1 of the Original Side Rules read with Order VII Rule 1 C.P.C., praying to pass a judgment and decree for:-
(b) grant such further or other reliefs, and
(c) costs of the suit;
1. The present suit has been filed for recovery of money from the defendants along with interest.
2. The case of the plaintiff is that they are engaged in the business of sale/servicing of earth moving machineries, vehicles, spares, service and other allied activities. The further case of the plaintiff is that they had business dealings with the defendants from the year 2010 onwards and they have supplied spare parts, machineries etc., to the defendants and also have serviced the machineries and vehicles. According to the plaintiff, as and when the machineries and goods are sold, the invoice will be raised and payments will be made by the defendants and that there was a running account with the plaintiff.
3. The plaintiff states that there was a total outstanding sum of Rs.4,12,00,067.92/- and out of this amount, the defendants paid a sum of Rs.2,83,21,090.58/- and there was a balance of Rs.1,28,78,977.34/- payable by the defendants to the plaintiff.
4. The grievance of the plaintiff is that the defendants did not come forward to pay the balance amount in spite of several demands and requests and left with no other alternative, the present suit has been filed for recovery of money along with interest.
5. The defendants have questioned the very maintainability of the suit on the ground that it is barred by limitation. That apart, the 2nd defendant has sought for the dismissal of the suit on the ground of mis-joinder of parties, since the 2nd defendant during the relevant point of time was not involved in any transaction. The defendants have also denied their liability and have sought for the dismissal of the suit.
6. The suit was transferred to the file of the Commercial Division and the jurisdiction was determined by an order dated 28.03.2018.
7. Based on the pleadings, this court framed the following issues:
ii. Whether the suit is barred by limitation?
iii. What other reliefs the plaintiff is entitled to?
8. Two witnesses viz., PW-1 and PW-2 were examined on the side of the plaintiff and Exhibits P1 to P25 were marked. The defendants did not examine any witness nor did they rely upon any documents.
9. Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the defendants.
10. This Court will take up the main issue raised by the defendants on the ground of limitation, since the very maintainability of the suit will depend upon the answer that is given to this issue.
11. The specific case of the plaintiff is that they supplied goods and rendered services to the 1st defendant and in the course of the said transaction, the defendants are liable to pay an outstanding amount of Rs.1,28,78,977/- along with interest. To substantiate this claim, the plaintiff is mainly relying upon the invoices marked as Exhibits P4 to P16. These invoices pertains to the period from 18.09.2010 to 30.08.2011. Insofar as the Exhibits P9 to P15 are concerned, while marking these documents, strong objection was made by the learned counsel for the defendants on the ground that these invoices do not bear the signature of the defendants and these documents were marked subject to objections. The suit was admittedly presented on 01.12.2014.
12. On carefully perusing the averments made in
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
