Acknowledgments made after limitation expiry do not revive time-barred claims under the Limitation Act.

P.Krishna Kumar, J.

The unsuccessful plaintiff in a suit for recovery of money based on a contract is the appellant. The suit was filed on 16.12.1997 as an indigent petition. The trial court found that the suit was barred by limitation.

2. The parties are hereinafter referred to as they were arrayed in the suit. The plaintiff was awarded two contracts by the first defendant, the Kerala State Electricity Board, on 30.01.1986 (Agreement Nos. 29/85-86 & 30/85-86) for casting 1,500 RCC poles of 8 metres length for the Electrical Major Section, Kannur. The plaintiff completed the work covered by the first agreement within the extended period, namely, on or before 30.01.1987. However, the work covered by the second agreement was not completed within the stipulated or extended time. According to the plaintiff, the delay occurred solely on account of the non-co-operation of the defendants. Alleging that despite repeated demands the defendants failed to effect payment, the plaintiff instituted the suit seeking recovery of the balance amount due under the first agreement and part-payment for the work allegedly executed under the second agreement, claiming a total sum of ₹47,09,732/- (Rupees Forty-Seven Lakhs Nine Thousand Seven Hundred and Thirty-Two only) with interest. During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff died and his legal heirs were impleaded as additional plaintiffs.

3. The defendants filed a written statement contending, inter alia, that the suit was barred by limitation. According to them, though the plaintiff completed the work under the first agreement, he failed to commence and complete the work under the second agreement and had cast only 365 RCC poles, which constituted less than 25% of the total work entrusted. The allegation that the delay was occasioned by the laches of the defendants was specifically denied. It was further contended that the third defendant had issued several communications calling upon the plaintiff to complete the work, but he failed to do so, thereby causing substantial loss to the defendants. According to the defendants, the plaintiff was, in fact, liable to pay an amount of ₹8,12,022/- to them.

4. The evidence in the case comprises the oral testimony of PW1 and DW1 and documentary evidence marked as Exts. A1 to A42 and Exts. B1 to B36. On an appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence on record, the trial court held that the suit was barred by limitation. The court further found that the plaintiffs had failed to establish that the non-completion of the work under the second agreement was attributable to any fault on the part of the defendants.

5. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellants as well as the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents.

6. The question that arises for consideration is whether the suit is barred by limitation and, if not, whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the reliefs claimed.

7. It is not in dispute that the agreements were executed between the plaintiff and the first defendant on 30.01.1986 and that the extended period for completion of the work under both agreements expired on 30.01.1987. It is also not disputed that the plaintiff completed the work under the first agreement and that certain amounts remained unpaid by the defendants. The learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs contended that, if Exts. A31 and A35 communications issued by the defendants are properly construed, it would be evident that the suit was instituted within the period of limitation. It was argued that the defendants denied their liability for the first time only through Ext. B26 letter dated