Suit barred by limitation even with acknowledgement under Section 18 if filed beyond three years; parties bound by trial court concessions.

JUDGMENT :

K.Kumaresh Babu, J.

The present appeal has been filed by the defendant challenging the judgment and decree dated 06.11.2019 whereby the suit was partly decreed by the learned Single Judge in C.S.No.343 of 2011 and the Cross Objection has been filed by the plaintiff as against the disallowed portion.

2. Heard the learned Senior counsel/counsel appearing for their respective parties in the respective Appeal and Cross Objection.

3. A suit had been instituted for recovery of money on the basis of the loans that were advanced by the plaintiff claiming a sum of Rs.2,26,82,963.78/- together with interest at the rate of 24% per annum and the same was primordially contested on the ground of limitation. The following issues were framed.

(i) Whether the suit is barred by limitation ?

(ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a sum of Rs.2,26,82,963.78 payable by the defendants, with interest at 24% per annum ?

(iii) To what relief, the plaintiff is entitled ?

4. The parties have examined themselves and have also marked various exhibits on either side. Answering to the issues, the learned Single Judge had held that the plaintiffs claim for the entire suit claim had been barred by limitation and had decreed a sum of Rs.38,71,214/- without any interest there upon and the plaintiff was held to be entitled to 6% interest from the date of the decree till its realisation, on a finding that the decreed amount as reflected in the accounts to be an acknowledgement of liability.

5. The defendants have filed an Intra-Court Appeal primarily contending that even the said acknowledgement which had been relied upon by the learned Single Judge under Ex.P33 is dated 30.01.2006 and therefore, the suit ought to have been filed on or before 29.01.2009 but the suit had been presented before this Court only on 30.01.2009 and therefore, the entire suit itself is barred by law of limitation. He would submit that the learned Single Judge had wholly erred in failing to note that the suit had been hit by the law of limitation and proceeded to hold based on Ex.P33, that the defendants are liable to pay the decreed amount. He would further submit that the said amount shown in the books of accounts as reflected in Ex.P33 also only relates to an acknowledgement which was beyond the period of limitation and therefore, such acknowledgement at any rate cannot be taken to be an acknowledgement of liability falling under Section 18 of the Limitation Act to grant the decree.Hence, he would seek indulgence of this Court.

6. Countering his arguments, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/ plaintiff would submit that under Ex.P33, it is the defendants on their own volition have accepted that there was a debt payable by them to the plaintiffs and therefore, the decree under the same cannot be said to be a decree which requires interference by this Court. That apart, he would submit that the learned Single Judge had failed to note that the transactions between the parties are continuous transactions and therefore, the entire suit claim would also not be hit by law of limitation. He would submit that when the transaction have been accepted to by the parties, the learned Single Judge ought to have granted a decree as prayed for based upon the uncontroverted evidence of PW1 and the exhibits filed through him. He would further submit that even for the amount decreed, the learned Single Judge had failed to grant interest atleast from the date of the filing the plaint and therefore, he would submit that if this Court upholds the decree interest from the date of at least the plaint being filed before this Court may be granted. In