The main legal point established in the judgment is that an acknowledgment of liability under Section 18 of the Limitation Act must be in writing and signed by the party against whom the right is claimed in order to extend the period of limitation.

This second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of the Civil Procedure is directed against the judgment and decree dated 09.11.2010 passed by the learned District Judge, South Tripura, Udaipur, in Money Appeal No. 01 of 2010 whereunder the learned District Judge has upheld the judgment and decree of dismissal dated 25.05.2010 passed by learned Civil Judge, Jr. Division, Udaipur, South Tripura in Money Suit No.01 of 2009.

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

(i) Whether the learned courts below committed error by failing to hold that the letter dated 15306 (Exhibit6) issued by the respondent No.2 was an acknowledgement within the meaning of Section 18 of the Limitation Act?

(ii) Whether the learned courts below committed error by dismissing the suit on the ground of limitation by holding that there was no acknowledgment within the meaning of Section 18 of the Limitation Act?

3. Heard learned counsel Mr. Somik Deb for the appellant and learned counsel Mr. G.S. Bhattacharjee for the respondents.

4. The appellant as plaintiff instituted Money Suit No.01 of 2009 in the Court of Civil Judge, Jr. Division, Udaipur seeking decree for realization of money amounting to Rs.79,999/with interest from the defendants. The plaintiff, inter alia, contended that he maintains a business of supplying motor parts and fitting, fixing and repairing of vehicles at Brahmma Bari Udaipur in the name and style “Ali Engineering Workshop”. On 15.01.2003 defendant No.3 appeared in his workshop and entered into an oral agreement for supplying of motor parts as well as fitting, fixing and repairing of vehicles of 5th Bn. TSR. Pursuant to that oral agreement, the defendant No.3 time to time issued 35 nos. of supply orders and during the period from 25.01.2003 to 16.08.2003 the plaintiff supplied various motor parts and also done maintenance works of the vehicles of defendant No.3. He submitted 58 nos. of bills amounting to Rs.79,999/, but in spite of repeated claims, bills were not paid and it was kept pending. By writing a letter dated 25.08.2003 the defendant No.3 invited the plaintiff to attend his office with all records and accordingly the plaintiff attended the office of the defendant No.3 on 30.08.2003 and after examining all records defendant No.3 made a commitment that the payments of those bills will be made within 31.03.2004. As per that commitment bills were not paid. So the plaintiff through his engaged counsel issued a notice on 19.01.2007 under Section 80 of CPC. The defendants through Assistant Inspector General of Police by writing a letter dated 15.03.2007, in response to that notice under Section 80 CPC, declined to make payment of the bills on different grounds. The plaintiff, thereafter instituted the suit on 15.01.2009.

5. The defendant-respondents by filing a common written statement denied the averments made in the plaint and contended that there was no such oral agreement between the plaintiff and defendant No.3 and that the plaintiff was not entitled to get the payment of the bills claimed by him. It was also contended that the suit was barred by limitation.

6. The trial Court framed 5 issues namely—

1. Whether the plaintiff has cause of action in his favour?

2. Is the suit barred by limitation?

3. Had there been any valid oral agreement in between the plaintiff and the defendant No.3 on 15.01.03 A.D. for maintenance of motor vehicles?

4. Is the plaintiff entitled to get decree as prayed for?

5. To what other relief/reliefs the parties are entitled to?

7. Issue Nos. 1 and 3 were decided in favour of the plaintiff but issue No.2 was decided by the trial Court against the plaintiff and hence, the suit was dismissed.

8. Aggrieved the plaintiff preferred Money Appeal No.01/2010 and by the impugned judgment dated 09.11.2010, the appeal has been dismissed.

9. Learned counsel Mr. Deb appearing for the plaintiff-appellant has urged that the trial Court and the appellate Court