TMI Blog1971 (4) TMI 100X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... efendant. The plaintiff further contended that the amounts advanced by the plaintiff to the defendant were agreed to be repaid with interest at 9 per cent, per annum. In respect of such amount, the plaintiff claimed that there was due and payable by the defendant a sum of ₹ 7146-1-9 for balance of principal and ₹ 1,416-10-6 for interest, aggregating to ₹ 8562-12-3. The plaintiff pleaded that the suit was not barred by limitation by reason of adjustments of credits made towards prior amounts due, and by reason of the letters of acknowledgment dated 2-11-1956 and 21-12-1956. 2. The defendant contended that the statement of account filed along with the plaint was not correct, that there were several items of debit in the s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , the trial court dismissed the suit with costs. 4. The only point for consideration in this appeal is whether the suit claim was barred by limitation, as the findings of the trial court was not challenged in other respects. 5. In the plaint, the plaintiff relied on two letters, Exs. A. 25 and A. 28, as letters acknowledging liability and saving the suit from the bar of limitation. The plaintiff also contended that the suit was not barred by limitation by reason of adjustments of credits made towards prior amounts due. 6. Ex. A. 25 is a letter written by the defendant to the plaintiff, demanding the plaintiff to send the statement of account for the period from 1953 till the date of that letter. Ex. A. 28 is another letter repeatin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ess to have it settled or to pay whatever amount that might be found due. In our opinion, the decision in AIR 1939 Mad 300 does not support the case of the plaintiff appellant to hold that Ex. A. 25 and A. 28 were acknowledgments of liability. 7. The learned counsel for the appellant also relied on certain letters in support of his argument that the defendant had acknowledged liability. But, we did not permit him to rely on those letters as plaintiff had not pleaded in the plaint that those letters saved the suit from the bar of limitation. Under Order 7, Rule 6, Civil P. C., it is obligatory, as a matter of pleading, to show the grounds upon which the exemption from limitation is claimed. Consequently, unless the plaint is amended, it w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... attern and it would be enough if we take one invoice to find out whether the appropriation pleaded by the defendant was true. Taking Ex. A. 8(I) as an illustration, it is stated that that is the invoice for Japanese cups and saucers. It gives particulars like payment to Grindlays Bank, letter of credit charges, airmail charges, customs duty, agent's commission, clearing charges and profit margin on CIF value, and the total of the above figures, which comes to ₹ 1,228-13-9. This sum of ₹ 1228-13-9 is given credit to in the ledger Ex. A. 3. The details for arriving at this ₹ 1228-13-9 are given in the day book as set out in the invoice. It is clear from the invoice and the entries in the day book and the ledger, that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he debt due by him prior to 10-12-1955. Any balance due from the defendant after setting off the payments subsequent to 10-12-1955 and due from the defendant prior to 10-12-1955, will only be barred. But the amounts advanced subsequent to 10-12-1955, will, therefore, be clearly in time. As per the statement of account given in the plaint, the total amount that was advanced by the plaintiff subsequent to 10-12-1955 comes to ₹ 8470-1-6. But as the plaintiff has claimed only ₹ 7146-1-9 as the principal amount of the dealings, he will be entitled to a decree only for that amount. 10. The plaintiff had also claimed interest on the amount found due for the period prior to the suit. The plaintiff had not proved any agreement between ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
