1994 PLP 173 (CLC)

(5) Whether the defendant is liable to pay the amount claimed by the plaintiff? (6) What should the decree be? Both the parties had led the evidence and the trial Court after hearing the Advocates for the parties was pleased to decree the suit. Being aggrieved the present respondent preferred Civil Appeal No.43 of 1981 which was heard by learned Ist Additional District Judge, Hyderabad, who held that the suit was barred by limitation under Article 57 of the Limitation Act and thus dismissed the suit. Hence this Revision Application. I have heard Mr. Akhtar Ahmed Bhutto, the learned counsel for applicant and Mr. Raja Khan; the learned counsel appearing for respondent. The learned counsel for applicant has conceded that the only point involved in the case is the issue of limitation. The relevant dates for the purpose of determining the above issue are that the overdraft was sanctioned on 5‑10‑1969. Mr. Akhtar Ahmed Bhutto, Advocate has submitted that since this is a suit based on the running account, therefore, it will be covered by Article 85 of the Limitation Act and not by Article 57 of the Limitation Act as held by the learned Additional District Judge. Article 85 of the Limitation Act reads as under: "

85. For the balance due on a Three years. The close of the mutual open and current year in which the account, where there last item admitted have been reciprocal or proved is demands between the entered in the parties. account; such year to be computed as in the account." As against this Article 57 reads as under: "

57. For money payable for Three years When the loan is money lent. made." Of course the evidence as produced by the parties shows that there was an account maintained by the respondent with the applicant which is evident from paragraph 2 of the written statement wherein he has. stated "Para.3 denied" as at present the Defendant has no account with the plaintiff. This is an evasive reply to the contents of para. 3 of the plaint. The denial pertains to the period when the written statement was filed but not an earlier period. This is contrary to the provisions of Order. VIII, rule 3, C.P.C. which reads as under: "

3. Denial to be specific.‑‑It shall not be sufficient for a defendant in his written statement to deny generally the grounds alleged by the plaintiff, but the defendant must deal specifically with each allegation of fact of which he does not admit the truth, except damages." The denial has to be specific and not evasive or vague. Such denial would be deemed to be no denial. Accordingly, I have no hesitation in holding that the present respondent did operate the current account with the applicant Bank. However, the point under consideration is the limitation. Now in the present case the learned counsel for applicant has based his arguments on the alleged acceptance of liability on 29‑4‑1974 and the deposit of Rs.50 on 2‑7‑1974. He has submitted that from these dates, his suit instituted on 19‑4‑1977 is within a period of three years and therefore, is not hit by limitation either under Article 57 or Article

85. Suffice it to say that in the first instance the deposit of Rs.50 has not been proved to have been made by the present respondent who, in his written statement, has denied the same. The applicants have not produced the Pay‑in‑Slip showing the deposit of Rs.50 in the account of the respondent to prove that it was he who has deposited the amount. A deposit in any person's account in a Bank through Pay‑in‑Slip can be made by any person, even the Bankers themselves. Mere deposit in one account by itself does not prove the fact that it was the account‑holder himself who has deposited the amount. Even otherwise if this deposit or the alleged acceptance of liability through a letter by respondent on 29‑4‑1974 is considered to be an acknowledgement, the same could not be .covered by provisions of section 19 or 20 of the Limitation Act which both provide for such acknowledgement in writing or payment of account of debt to be made before the expiration of the prescribed period. Obviously these two facts of alleged acknowledgement of liability and last deposit of Rs.50 are made in the year 1974 which is much more after the expiry of three years from the date of overdraft or the last date, i.e. the close of the year thereof. The upshot of the above discussion is that the suit of the plaintiff/applicant on the face of it is barred by limitation as rightly dismissed by the lower appellate Court. In these circumstances, I do not find any reason to interfere with the judgment of the lower appellate Court. Accordingly, the Revision Application is dismissed with no order as to costs. AA./U‑145/K Revision dismissed.