The ruju hisab constituted a new contract, allowing the plaintiff to maintain a suit for the entire claim against defendant 2, irrespective of time-barred items, and clarified the applicability of limitation periods under the Limitation Act.

Kinkhede, A J C—As the result of certain past dealings, between the parties, which were adjusted by them, a balance was struck, which showed that, on 6th June 1923, the defendants were liable to plaintiff in the sum of Rs. 514-7-6. Defendant 2, purporting to act for himself and for his father, defendant 1, signed a ruju hisab, and orally agreed to repay with interest the sum found due, at the rate of 1 per cent, per mensem, within one month of the execution of the hisab. Plaintiff filed the present suit for the recovery of Rs. 724-15-3 inclusive of interest up to the date of the suit, viz., 16th June 1926

2. Defendant 1 denied his liability on the ground of non-execution and limitation. Defendant 2 admitted the signing of the ruju, but denied that, the ruju was an account stated, and urged that only items aggregating Rs. 66-3-9 were within time, and plaintiff was, therefore, not entitled to anything more than that amount on the strength of the ruju. It is significant to note that defendant 2 did not deny the plaintiff's allegations in para. 1 of the plaint about the oral agreement to repay within one month. Plaintiff's claim was decreed for such items as were in time at the date of the execution of the ruju with interest therein, and the rest of the claim was dismissed as barred by time. The claim was wholly dismissed as against defendant 1 for want of execution by him and only partly decreed against defendant 2. In arriving at this conclusion the Court below treated the ruju hisab as a mere acknowledgment, and not as account stated or as a mutual, open and current account. The plaintiff has come up in revision against the decision.

3. As to defendant 1's liability for the claim no serious attempt was made to show how he was bound by the admission of liability made by defendant 2 in regard to the balance found due on adjustment of the khata which stood in the name of both on 6th June 1923. The dismissal of the claim as against defendant 1 must, therefore, stand.

4. The next question is whether the ruju hisab was a mere acknowledgment, or an account stated, or a mutual open and current account. If it was a mere acknowledgment and the items disallowed were advanced on dates long prior to three years of the date of acknowledgment, the dismissal of the claim must hold good. So far as the contention that the account was a mutual open, and current account - suffice it to say that the nature of the dealings is not such that the balance must shift on one side or the other - Article 85, Lim. Act, does not therefore, apply.

5. As to whether the case comes under Article 64, Lim. Act, I may observe that, where an account stated comprises items on both sides and a balance is deducted thereon, that balance is recoverable within three years from the statement of account, although some of the earlier items in the account may have then been already time barred. If the entries on p. 2 of the hisab bahi were scrutinized, it will be found that, on the day of the settlement, the account was made of items beginning from Fagun Badi 30, Sambat 1975, and ending with 11 Jeth Badi 8, Sambat 1980. The account, on the face of it, thus shows that several items of more than three years standing were taken into consideration in the balance due, without objection on the part of the executant. Interest was also calculated and added on that basis; and, although, under date Magh Sudh 5, Sambat 1977, a sum of Rs. 115 was debited to the defendant's khata a3 the price of a pair of bullocks, that item was wiped out by a corresponding credit entry of Rs. 115 as the price of the pair of bullocks as they were returned, under, date 6th June 1923. This credit was again squared by a debit under the maveshi khata, i.e., for purchase of cattle. Then again, a debit item of Rs. 69-2-0, on account of havalat of one Budha for a sum of Rs. 50 advanced to him, and interest thereon, from mitti Shravan Sudi 4, Sambat 1977 to Duja Jeth Badi 30, Sambat 1980, also appears debited