The acknowledgment of debt and subsequent payments can affect the limitation period, leading to a reversal of findings in favor of the plaintiff.

R.L. Anand, J - Unsuccessful plaintiff Punjab National Bank, Bhatinda Branch has filed the present R.F.A. and it has been directed against the judgment and decree dated 24.1.1979 passed by the Senior Sub Judge, Bhatinda, who dismissed the money suit of the plaintiffs Bank for a sum of Rs. 1,01,563.33.

2. The pleadings of the parties can be described and summarised in the following manner :-

3. Punjab National Bank, Bhatinda Branch (hereinafter called the Bank) filed a money suit through Rajinder Pal Bedi, its Manager and Attorney of the Bank for recovery of Rs. 1,01,563.33 as the balance due from defendant No. 1 towards their cash credit account with the Bank. The case set up by the plaintiff in the trial Court was that the Bank being a Scheduled and Nationalised Bank has different branches in India including at Bhatinda. Rajinder Pal Bedi is the Manager of Bhatinda Branch of the Bank and he has been duly authorised to file the suit. Defendant No. 1 firm through its partners had opened current account with the Bank vide account opening form (sic) secured by the plaintiff Bank belonging to the defendant were put to auction, which fetched a sum of Rs. 11,252/- and after accounting for all these payments, the balance due against the defendant was Rs. 1,01,563.33 as on 31.12.1976 and the defendant has not paid the same. Hence, the suit

4. Notice of the suit was given to the defendants. The stand taken up by the defendants is that Harbans Lal never accepted the balance amount of Rs. 99,429,67 on 5.1.1973. No loan was obtained by the defendants from the Calcutta office of the plaintiff Bank. Sunder Dass, one of the partners of the defendant firm has since expired and he had a pre-deceased daughter namely Maya Devi, who had one son and three daughters and they were not made parties in the suit and as such the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. It was also pleaded by the defendants that the suit of the plaintiff is not within limitation nor it has been filed by a duly authorised person. The defendant firm has already paid more than double the amount advanced to it and as such no decree can be passed.

5. The plaintiff filed a rejoinder to the written statement in which it reiterated its assertions made in the plaint by denying those of the written statement and from the pleadings of the parties the learned trial Court framed the following issues :

1. Whether Shri Rajinderpal Bedi had locus-standi to file this suit on behalf of the plaintiff-Bank ? OPP

2. Whether the plaintiff Bank is a Nationalised Bank under the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Undertaking) Act, 1970 ? OPP

3. Whether the partners of defendant No. 1 executed an agreement in favour of plaintiff Bank accepting their liability to repay due/balance amount ? OPP

4. Whether vide above agreement the security so deposited under that agreement was sole and absolute and unencumbered property ? OPP

5. Whether defendant No. 1 through their partner Harbans Lal accepted their liability and confirmed a balance of Rs. 99,429.67 due from them on 5.1.1973 and was acknowledged at Bhatinda ? OPP

6. Whether the plaintiff Bank maintains its account in more than three account books regularly and correctly in due course of business ? If so, its effect ? OPP

7. Whether the defendant No. 1 had been dealing with the plaintiff Bank and taking the loan benefits and a loan of Rs. 1,76,806.09 was returned against it which was also accounted for ? OPP

8. Whether a sum of Rs. 1,01,563.33. is due from defendant No. 1 which they are liable to pay to the plaintiff from 5.1.1973 upto 31.12.1975 ? OPP

9. Whether the suit is within limitation ? OPP

10. Whether the defendant No. 1 has paid more than double the amount advanced; if so its effect ? OPD

11. Whether Maya Devi was the daughter of Sunder Dass (deceased) and she died leaving behind one son and three daughters and the latter are necessary parties ? If so, what is effect of their non-joinder ? OPP

11-A. Whether this Court has