GURBIR SINGH, J.

1. Present Regular Second Appeal has been filed by the plaintiff-appellant against the judgment and decree dated 11.10.2022 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib, whereby the appeal filed by him against the judgment and decree dated 17.04.2018 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Fatehgarh Sahib, has been dismissed.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant-plaintiff (hereinafter called, “plaintiff”) filed a suit for recovery of Rs.92,463/- as principal amount and Rs.1,26,504/- as interest. The suit was filed with the averments that the firm i.e. M/s Baldev Singh and Sons was being run by the plaintiff as its proprietor. The respondent-defendant (hereinafter called, “defendant”) used to sell his crops to the 1 of 4 ::: Downloaded on - 11-08-2024 16:56:00 :::

RSA-79-2023 (O&M) - 2 - plaintiff and borrow amount from it @ 24% per annum. The plaintiff maintained account books regularly in the ordinary course of business in the shape of cash book, rokar and bahi and the defendant signed the documents of borrowed amount.

2.1 On the other hand, defendant admitted his dealings with the plaintiff that he used to sell his crops with it, but denied of having borrowed any amount from the plaintiff-firm, as alleged.

2.2 The trial Court dismissed the suit by holding that the plaintiff could not produce the corroborative documents in support of his plea and moreover, the claim was time barred. The findings recorded by the trial Court were also upheld before the learned Appellate Court.

2.3 Aggrieved against the judgments and decrees of both the courts below, the plaintiff has approached this Court by way of present appeal.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the courts below have erred in dismissing the claim of the appellant-plaintiff as the loan advanced stood duly proved in the shape of accounts books and the factum of loan was admitted by respondent-defendant. It is submitted that the last payment was received by the respondent on 25.05.2011, so the period of limitation started from said date.

4. I have heard the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant and have gone through the file.

5. The appellant-plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of the amount on the basis of entries in the account books. The courts below 2 of 4 ::: Downloaded on - 11-08-2024 16:56:01 :::

RSA-79-2023 (O&M) - 3 - have non-suited the plaintiff mainly on the ground that the suit is barred by limitation. The entries shown in the account books were not regularly kept in the course of business. So, no reliance could be placed on the same.

6. As per the version of the plaintiff, a sum of Rs.92,463/-

along with interest was received by the defendant on 29.04.2010 and 28.05.2010 whereas the suit has been filed on 23.05.2014. The plea of the plaintiff is that a sum of Rs.50,000/- was deposited by the defendant on 25.05.2011 in cash as part payment of the amount due, so period of limitation had commenced from 25.05.2011. PW1 admitted in his cross-

examination that he did not get the said entry signed from the defendant.

7. Section 19 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is as under:-

“ 19. Effect of payment on account of debt or of interest on legacy. —Where payment on account of a debt or of interest on a legacy is made before the expiration of the prescribed period by the person liable to pay the debt or legacy or by his agent duly authorised in this behalf, a fresh period of limitation shall be computed from the time when the payment was made:

Provided that, save in the case of payment of interest made before the 1st day of January, 1928, an acknowledgment of the payment appears in the handwriting of, or in a writing signed by, the person making the payment.

Explanation.—For the purposes of this section,— (a) where mortgaged land is in the possession of the mortgagee, the receipt of the rent or prod