A K S MUHAMMAD SULTAN ROWTHER AND CO REGISTERED FIRM Vs. MANICKAM CHETTIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision petition filed under Section 25 of the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, against the judgment of the Fourth Additional District Munsif, Tiruchirapalli, in S. C. S. No. 2378 of 1957. The prior facts necessary for the consideration of the petition are the following.

(2.) The plaintiff is a wholesale dealer who has been supplying goods from time to time on credit to the defendant, a retail dealer. The plaintiff kept a running account in a ledger for these transactions. The defendant paid amounts towards these purchases from time to time and the payments made by him were adjusted in the plaintiff's ledger towards the value of the goods supplied. According to the plaint, the balance of the amount due by the defendant to the plaintiff on 22-7-1957 was Rs. 59-3-9. This amount together with a small amount for interest represented the suit claim of Rs. 60. The suit was filed on 4-12-1957. The defendant in his written statement made specific attacks on the accuracy of the extract from his accounts which the plaintiff had supplied along with the plaint. There was a final plea that the claim was barred by time.

(3.) The learned District Munsif, after considering the evidence, gave a finding that the accounts of the plaintiff were correct and that the defendant's objections on this score should be overruled. Apparently, there was a plea before the lower court that the transactions amounted to a mutual, open and current account and the relevant Article of the Limitation Act which has to be applied for the purpose of limitation would be Article 85. The learned District Munsif rejected this contention. Then he concluded as follows: "....Article 52 of the Limitation Act applied to the present case and the plaintiff cannot claim balances on account of purchases made prior to 4-12-1954. From the copy of the accounts filed by plaintiff along with his plaint, it is seen that there is no outstanding dues by the defendant in respect of the sales subsequent to 4-12-1954. In conclusion, I find that the suit claim which relates to delivery ot goods prior to 4-12-1954 is barred by limitation." The suit was dismissed. The plaintiff has come up in revision to this court. The plaintiff contended that the court below came to an erroneous conclusion in the view which it took regarding the application of Article 52 of the Limitation Act. Though there is a ground taken in the revision petition that the court below erred in holding that the suit claim is not governed by Article 85 of the Limitation Act, at the time of hearing of the petition this last-mentioned ground was not pressed and the only ground pressed was that though the proper Article to be applied was Article 52, it, was not properly applied by the learned District Munsif, to the facts of the present case.