JUGAL KISHORE Vs. TCAUL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question raised in this second appeal is whether a letter sent by the defendant in the suit to the plaintiff on the 6 November 1920, amounts to an acknowledgment to save limitation under Section 19 of the Limitation Act. It appears that the plaintiff supplied the defendant with motor accessories from time to time and the greater part of the account was settled in June 1920. After that a dispute arose between the parties, the defendant who is a doctor, refusing to pay the balance of the bill until his professional fees were settled. This suit was not brought until the 6 November 1923, and unless that letter is an acknowledgment the suit will be beyond time. The terms of this letter are as follows: I do not understand why you persist in sending me bills when you yourself owe me Rs. 528. Please deduct your bill from the money you owe me and send the balance of Rs. 181-8-0 at your earliest. It will oblige. Don t send any more bills please.

(2.) Now an acknowledgment for the purposes of Section 19 of the Limitation Act must be an acknowledgment of liability and this letter expressly denies any liability. It may admit that the items of the bill are correct though it does not say so but it certainly insists that no money is due from the defendant. The case is not strictly parallel to that cited on behalf, of the appellant reported in Curlendar v. Abdul Hamid A.I.R. 1921 All. 335, because in that case the defendant admitted that a certain sum was due and paid that sum. It is true that the ruling reported in Badri Das V/s. Manohar Das [1913] 11 A.L.J. 601 and relied upon by the lower Court is not strictly in point, but I have been shown no case in which a complete denial that any sum is due has been held to be an acknowledgment of liability. I would, therefore, not hold that this is a case of an acknowledgment of liability coupled with a claim to a set-off which is the only ground on which the appellant could succeed.

(3.) Further, it is argued that the account should be held to be within time because of an item of Rs. 3 dated the 19 December 1920. This appears after a long interval and after the last payment made on the account by the defendant. It is also more than a month after the letter written by the defendant in which he has clearly answered the plaintiff's claim for settlement of the account, I do not consider that the plaintiff is entitled to tack on a small item of this nature which had no part in the account which had already been accepted by the defendant and included in his suit merely for the purpose of saving limitation. I find, therefore, that the appeal was rightly dismissed. I agree with the appellate Court and dismiss the appeal with costs.