IMPORTANT POINT
Suit could be filed after three years from date of breach of contract only if there was acknowledgement under Section 18 of Limitation Act, 1963.

U.C. Dhyani, J.—Present Second Appeal has been preferred by the appellant being aggrieved against the judgment and decree dated 25.02.2015, passed by learned 3rd Additional District Judge, Haridwar, in Civil Appeal No. 23 of 2008 (General Manager vs. Mamraj Singh), whereby the suit of the plaintiff/appellant has been dismissed and judgment & decree dated 19.09.2008, passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division)/ 1st FTC, Haridwar in Original Suit No. 141 of 1997 (Mamraj vs. General Manager and other) has been set aside.

2. Plaintiff/appellant filed a suit against the defendant/respondents for realizing a sum of Rs. 28948.79/- in the Court of Civil Judge (S.D.), Haridwar. The learned Civil Judge (S.D.), Haridwar, vide judgment and decree dated 19.09.2008, decreed the suit of the plaintiff. The plaintiff was directed to pay Rs. 15266.79/- along with interest at the rate of 18 % per annum. The defendant was also directed to pay interest at the rate of 6 % per annum from the date of institution of the suit till realization of the money. Aggrieved against the same, the defendant preferred a Civil Appeal No. 23 of 2008, which was allowed by learned 3rd Additional District Judge, Haridwar, vide judgment and decree dated 25.02.2015. The order passed by learned Trial Court on 19.09.2008 was set aside. Learned Lower Appellate Court has held, among other things, that the suit was barred by limitation.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted, among other things, that Article 70 of the Schedule along with Section 18 of the Limitation Act (Act no. 36 of 1963) and not Article 24 of the Schedule shall be applicable to the facts of the case.

4. Let us see the legal provisions referred to above:

Description of suit Period of limitation Time from which period begins to run

24. For money payable by the Three years When the money is received.

defendant to the plaintiff for

money received by the

defendant, for the plaintiff’s

use.

70. To recover movable property Three years When the property is wrongfully taken.

deposited or pawned from a

depository or pawnee.

5. 18. Effect of acknowledgement in writing.- (1) Where, before the expiration of the prescribed period for a suit or application in respect of any property or right, an acknowledgement of liability in respect of such property or right has been made in writing signed by the party against whom such property or right is claimed, or by any person through whom he derives his title or liability, a fresh period of limitation shall be computed from the time when the acknowledgement was so signed.

(2) Where the writing containing the acknowledgment is undated, oral evidence may be given of the time when it was signed; but subject to the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), oral evidence of its contents shall not be received.

Explanation:-……………………………

6. As per Section 18, acknowledgement can be with respect to not only property or right but it can be even with respect to the liability. A suit could be filed after three years from the date of breach of contract only if there was acknowledgement under Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

7. The group of articles beginning from 21 to 24 deal with the creditors and debtors and the deposit of the money by one for the use of the other.

8. Article 24 applies to the suits for money payable by the defendant to the plaintiff for money received by the defendant for the plaintiff’s use. This article ought to apply wherever the defendant has received, which, in justice and equity, belongs to the plaintiff under circumstances, which in law, render the receipt of it a receipt by the defendant to the use of the plaintiff. This form of action lies for money paid by mistake, or upon a consideration which happens to fail, or for money got thorough imposition (express or implied) or extortion or operation or an undue advantage taken of the plaintiff’s situation contrary to laws made for the protection of persons under tho