Limitation dismissal set aside to allow proof of the alleged acknowledgment of debt.

The plaintiff supplied goods to the defendant under a purchase order dated 26 September 2011.

Of the invoice amount of ₹14,45,702, the defendant paid ₹11,50,000, leaving ₹2,95,702 outstanding.

The plaintiff alleged that the defendant acknowledged the balance on 31 March 2013 and filed suit on 18 March 2016.

The defendant was placed ex parte.

The Trial Court dismissed the suit as time-barred, observing that the alleged acknowledgment had not been produced and that the legal notice gave a different date, 3 March 2013.

The plaintiff appealed under Section 96 CPC.

Whether the Trial Court was justified in dismissing the suit as barred by limitation, in light of the plaintiff’s assertion of an acknowledgment dated 31 March 2013?

The Court stated that a suit for recovery of money must be brought within three years from the accrual of the cause of action, and considered the plaintiff’s assertion that the defendant acknowledged the outstanding liability on 31 March 2013.

The judgment did not expressly identify a specific provision of the Limitation Act or cite any precedent.

It treated production of evidence of the alleged acknowledgment as material to determining whether the suit was within time.

The plaintiff pleaded and led evidence that the defendant acknowledged the debt on 31 March 2013; PW1’s evidence was uncontroverted because the defendant did not appear.

However, the acknowledgment itself had not been produced, and the date in the legal notice differed from the date relied on by the plaintiff.

Rather than finally determine limitation on that record, the Court considered that the plaintiff should have an opportunity to produce relevant documents and establish the alleged acknowledgment.

The Court did not finally decide whether the suit was within limitation.