Limitation Act, 1963 – s.14 – Partnership Act, 1932 – s.69(2) – A suit for recovery of money filed by the respondentplaintiff was dismissed by the trial Court – It was found that the plaintiff’s status as a registered partnership firm was not proved – In an appeal, Appellate Court accepted the Memorandum of Registration exhibited by the plaintiff and decreed the suit – The appellant herein, who was the defendant, contented that the suit claim was barred by limitation and also on valid proof having not been produced with respect to the registration of the plaintiff-firm: Held: On a perusal of the impugned judgment, it is clear that there was sufficient evidence to find the registration of the respondentfirm – There is no reason to uphold the order of the Trial Court rejecting the suit, finding the plaintiff to be not a partnership firm – As far as issue of limitation is concerned, the recovery sought is on the strength of the bills raised, with respect to the supplies made by the respondent to the appellant – Be that as it may, the respondent claimed that the cause of action arose on 03.06.2008 when there was an admission of debt and part payment – The order of the Company Court that the petition filed before it was affirmed on 07.02.2009 and filed on 10.02.2009 – The suit was filed with the cause of action arising on 03.06.2008; when a demand was raised by the respondent, on 01.08.2008; when it was responded by Annexure P-18 and on 02.09.2008; when part payment was made – However, Annexure P-18 indicates that there was no acknowledgment of debt and the payment made was not a part payment but the payment with respect to three invoices, admitted as remaining due, by the appellant/defendant – It is to be specifically noticed that the appellant had agreed to provide security only for two bills i.e., TC/152/05-06 and TC/153/05-06 dated 30.01.2006 before the Company Court – To surpass the limitation to file a suit for recovery of money as covered by the bills dated 30.01.2006, it should have been filed before 29.01.2009 – Even if the date on which the Company Petition was filed, is taken for the purpose of determining limitation, reckoning the period spent in prosecuting the Company Petition u/s.14 of the Limitation Act, the date of filing the Company Petition i.e., 10.02.2009, falls outside the limitation period – As for the other bills, the last of them is dated 06.03.2007, which remains unpaid and the suit was filed on 05.06.2010 after the limitation expired – There is no reason to sustain the order of the High Court in the First Appeal and, hence, reverse the same to the extent of granting the relief of recovery – The claim for recovery is hit by limitation – The suit, hence, stands dismissed. [Paras 4, 6-8, 15, 16, 18]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.