1933 (3) TMI 21 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the acknowledgment letter relied upon by the plaintiff suspends the operation of the limitation period.
2. Whether the letter written by a pleader was proved to have been written under the appellant's instructions.

Analysis:
1. The appeal involved a suit for recovery of money for goods sold and delivered on credit. The trial Court decreed the suit against the present appellant, which was upheld by the District Court. The appellant raised two points during the appeal: firstly, challenging the acknowledgment letter's validity in saving limitation under Section 19 of the Limitation Act, and secondly, disputing the proof of the pleader's letter being written under the appellant's instructions. The acknowledgment letter in question admitted the existence of the debt and included a promise to pay before a specified date, thus constituting a valid acknowledgment of liability. The Court cited precedents to establish that an acknowledgment need not specify the exact sum owed but can acknowledge the existence of a debt, as long as there is a promise to pay. Consequently, the suit was not premature as it was filed after the specified payment date mentioned in the acknowledgment letter.

2. The second issue revolved around proving that the letter written by the pleader was done under the appellant's instructions. The appellant's husband, who was also a party to the suit, testified that they received a notice and went to the pleader, but he could not recall if he instructed the pleader to reply. The Court analyzed the husband's testimony and found it insufficient to establish that the appellant did not instruct the pleader. The Court emphasized that when a lawyer writes a letter on behalf of a client, it is presumed to be done under instructions unless proven otherwise. Since the appellant failed to provide evidence to the contrary or call the pleader as a witness, the Court concluded that the letter must be attributed to the appellant. Consequently, the failure to prove that the letter was not written under the appellant's instructions justified the dismissal of the appeal. The Court ruled in favor of the respondent and dismissed the appeal with costs.