A cash credit account is a mutual, open and current account and, therefore, Art. 1 of the Limitation Act applies for realization of the dues under such in account.

G. B. PATTANAIK, J.

( 1 ) DEFENDANT No. 2 is the appellant against the judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge, Titilagarh, in Money Suit No. 64 of 1976 wherein the suit filed by the State Bank of India has been decreed to the extent of Rs. 16,245. 44 paise.

( 2 ) PLAINTIFFS case in brief is the defendant No. 1 is a partnership firm of which defendants 2 to 5 are partners. The defendants approached the plaintiff for cash credit accommodation and the plaintiff granted a cash credit accommodation to the extent of Rs. 20,000/- for the purpose of business of defendant No. 1. Defendant No. 1 through its partners, Omprakash Agrawal (defendant No. 2) executed an agreement for cash credit on security of pledge of goods, produce and merchandise. It was also agreed that the advance under the agreement would not exceed Rs. 20,000/- and interest to be charged thereon would be at the rate of 2 per cent above the rate of interest that is granted by the State Bank of India. The plaintiff Bank was authorised to sell or dispose of the goods pledged in the event payment was not made to reimburse itself and if still something remained due then the defendants would pay the same together with interest at 12 per cent per annum. The plaintiff appended a statement of accounts in Schedule A to the plaint indicating the dates of payment and balance remained unpaid and ultimately filed the suit for a decree for Rs. 16,245. 44 paise.

( 3 ) THE defendant filed a written statement denying all the allegations made in the plaint. It was also stated that the suit was barred by limitation and defendants were not liable either jointly or serverally for the amount in question.

( 4 ) ON these pleadings, five issues were framed and the learned Subordinate Judge came to hold that the claim of the plaintiff was genuine. Taking into amount the factum of payment made in October, 1976 under Ext. 18, he held that the suit was not barred by limitation. On issues Nos. 1 and 2 he hold that as the defendants had not repaid the dues of the plaintiff in spite of demand notice the plaintiff had the cause of action to bring the suit. On these findings the suit was decreed.

( 5 ) MR. P. K. Misra, the learned counsel for defendant No. 2 appellant raises two contentions in assailing the judgment and decree of the Court below:- (I) The finding of the learned Subordinate Judge that the suit is not barred by limitation is wholly contrary to law and cannot be sustained; and (II) The plaintiff having pleaded in the plaint that it is defendant No. 2 who executed the agreement on behalf on defendant No. 1, and the agreement in question not having been executed by defendant No. 2 but by defendant No. 3, the evidence led in that regard could not have at all been taken into account as being without jurisdiction and, therefore, the plaintiff having failed to establish that defendant No. 2 had executed the agreement, the suit must fail. Mr. Sinha, the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff-respondent No. 1, on the other hand, contends that the suit cannot be held to be barred by limitation. He also further urges that true it is that in the plaint it was averred that defendant No. 2 executed the agreement, but it was a mistake and in fact defending No. 3 had executed the agreement and since both were partners, the evidence led and considered cannot be held to be without jurisdiction.

( 6 ) COMING to the question of limitation, according to Mr. Misra for the appellant it is Art. 19 of the Limitation Act that applies and the period of limitation is three years which would start from the date when the loan is made. The loan having been made in the year 1969, the suit is obviously barred by limitation. Mr. Sinha appearing for the plaintiff-respondent No. 1, on the other hand, contends that a cash credit loan is nothing but a mutual, open and current account where there is reciprocal demand between the parties and, therefore, the period if limitation is governed by Art. 1 of the Limi