1984 PLP 360 (CLC)

(a) Limitation Act (IX of 1908)‑‑ ‑‑S. 19 ‑ Explanation I read with Art. 58‑Acknowledgment Defendant acknowledging receipt of cheque, dated 11th November, 1965 in a letter, dated 22nd April, 1968 in connection with other aspect of transaction‑Such acknowledgment, held, sufficient to save action from bar of limitation‑Suit for recovery of cheque in question filed, on 28th July, 1969 rightly treated as within time. (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑ ‑‑S. 115 ‑ Revisional jurisdiction ‑ Concurrent finding of fact recorded by Courts below, held, not open to interference in exercise of revisional jurisdiction: inasmuch as, no misreading of evidence on record found. JUDGMENT This revision petition is directed against the judgment and decree, dated 28th November, 1981 of the Additional District Judge, Faisalabad, whereby the first appeal filed by the petitioner herein against the judgment and decree, dated 7th April, 1975 of the trial Court decreeing the suit of respondent No. 1 /plaintiff for recovery of Rs. 5,000 was upheld. .

2. Respondent No. 1/plaintiff instituted a suit, on 28th July, 1969 against the petitioner for the recovery of Rs. 5,000 with interest. It was averred in the plaint that the respondent/plaintiff approached the petition er herein vide letter, dated 11th November, 1965 Exh. P‑10 for the supply of tillar, tracer, pullies, etc. Alongwith the letter a cheque Exh. P‑1 for Rs. 5,000 was also enclosed. The petitioner neither supplied the goods nor refunded the amount. The suit was contested by the petitioner. In view of the pleadings of the parties a number of issues were framed on merits, including issue No. 1, namely, "Is the suit barred by time". The issue of limitation was decided against the petitioner and the suit was decreed on merits. The first appellate Court affirmed the decree of the trial Court.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the Courts, below have wrongly treated the suit as within time on the basis of the document Exh. P‑3, dated 22nd April, 1968 which purports to contain an acknowledgment of liability in respect of the amount sued. It is sub mitted that the suit was admittedly not filed within three years from ‑ the time when the cheque was paid, therefore, it was barred by time under Article 58 of the Limitation Act, 1908.

4. The controversy involved in this case solely hinges on the cons truction of Exh. P‑3 which reads thus :‑ "Messrs United Vegetable Ghee Mills, Lyallpur. Dear Sirs, We are in receipt of your letter No. A.O. 2851, dated 2nd April, 1968 with regard to United Bank Limited cheque No. S. C. O. 15574, dated 11th November, 1965 for Rs. 5,

000. In response to your said letter we have to inform your goodselves that a Disc Harrow for Rs. 1,747.95 only was supplied to you, through your manager. You are requested to send us its acknowledge for which we shall highly be thankful to you. Thanking you, we remain. Yours faithfully, for MUHAMMAD YOUSAF & Co, LYALLPUR (Sd.) PROP :

5. A bare perusal of the said document would show that the peti tioner has acknowledged the receipt of cheque for Rs. 5,

000. This wan clearly an acknowledgment of liability in respect of the amount sued. Such an acknowledgment is not destroyed by the averments made in the document that a Disc Harrow was supplied. Under explanation I in section 19 of the Limitation Act, such an acknowledgment is sufficient to save an action from the bar of limitation. It is, therefore, difficult to hold that the document Exh. P. 3 was not in the nature of an acknowledg ment of the amount sued. I, therefore, bold that the suit was rightly treated as within time. The merits of the case are concluded by a con current finding of fact recorded by the Courts below which is not open to interference in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction, inasmuch as, I find no misreading of evidence on record. No other point has been urged.

6. In view of the above, the revision petition fails and is hereby dis missed with no order as to costs. M. B. A. Appeal dismissed.