- (1.) THE short question which requires consideration in this second appeal is whether limitation for the suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent was saved under Sec. 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963. On this question, the two courts below have differed. The trial court was of the view that the suit of the plaintiff-respondent was barred by time and S.18 of the Limitation Act did not come to his assistance. The lower appellate court, however, has taken a different view. It has come to the conclusion that Ext. 7 dated 13th of Nov. 1962 and Ext. 9 dated 14th of May, 1963, which are letters written by the defendant were sufficient acknowledgments and saved limitation under S.18 of the Act.
(2.) THE suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent was for the recovery of a sum of Rupees 5,622.88. It is not in dispute between the parties that the defendant-appellant was purchasing cloth from the plaintiff-respondent who are producers. The last purchase was admittedly made by the defendant on 15-9-1961 and the aforesaid amount represented the balance of the amount due to the plaintiff-respondent. The suit was instituted on 11-3-66 i.e. well beyond three years from the date of the last purchase. In order to save limitation, the plaintiff relied on a letter written by the defendant dated 2nd March, 1965. The trial court was of the view that the letter dated 2nd March, 1965 was an acknowledgment made after the expiry of three years from the date of the last purchase and could not be taken into account. It further held that Exts. 7 and 9, to which reference has already been made above, cannot be taken into consideration since the same have not been pleaded as saving limitation, in the statement of claim. The first court of appeal has held that the letters Exts. 7 and 9 could be taken into account in spite of the fact that they have not been referred to in the plaint. It further held that the said letters amounted to acknowledgment within the meaning of Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and, therefore, saved limitation. The appellate court accordingly decreed the suit of the plaintiff-respondent. O.VII, R.6 of the Civil P.C. lays down that where a suit is instituted after the expiration of the period prescribed by the law of limitation, the plaint shall show the ground upon which exemption from such law is claimed. To this rule, a proviso has been added by the C.P.C. (Amendment) Act, 1976, which reads as follows :- "Provided that the court may permit the plaintiff to claim exemption from the law of limitation on any ground not set out in the plaint, if such ground is not inconsistent with the grounds set out in the plaint."
(3.) THE said amendment is of a procedural nature. It is settled law that a litigant has no vested right in procedure. There is no reason why the law amended should not be taken into account. The first court of appeal has exercised its discretion in favour of the plaintiff-respondent. The exercise of the said discretion cannot be said to be perverse or erroneous in law. Apart from the reasoning of the court below on this question, with which I concur, I am of the view that after the amendment in O.7, R.6 of the Civil P.C., there can be no impediment in taking into consideration Exts. 7 and 9 for the purpose referred to in the opening part of the aforesaid provision of law.;