JUDGMENT

Harrison, J. - The only question to be decided in this appeal is that of limitation. Plaintiffs claimed Rs. 5,750 from the defendant-firm. The defendants confessed judgment in the sense that they admitted the correctness of the account and their liability but urged that the suit was barred by limitation. The contention prevailed and the suit was dismissed by the trial Court, it being held that it fell under Article 85, Lim. Act.

2. On appeal it is contended that Article 64 governs the case and not Article 85, and that even if Article 85 be held to apply, Article 64 applies equally and under these circumstances the more favourable period of limitation should be allowed to the plaintiffs. Many authorities have been cited and counsel for both sides have devoted much time to presenting the two different views. It is established that Mani Ram Seth v. Rup Chand [1906] 33 Cal. 1047 disposes of the view taken throughout a long series of rulings of this Court and of the Punjab Chief Court that an unqualified acknowledgment does not necessarily imply any sort of promise to pay.

3. The first point to be decided is whether Article 85 applies or not. There are two distinctly conflicting v