9911796707
TMI Blog1966 (12) TMI 74X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e at its Madurai Branch. On 1-7-1949, there was a payment of ₹ 250. On 14-6-1952, there was a further payment of ₹ 2000 by bank draft sent by the first respondent from Ipoh with a covering letter. The suit was instituted on 3-9-1960. By an amendment of the plaint, another payment of ₹ 1000, by a similar draft from the first respondent from Ipoh dated 21-6-1955 was set up. It was specifically asserted in the plaint that this sum was received in part payment of the debt. The first respondent filed a counter-affidavit opposing the amendment. But, there he merely mentioned that he did not admit the allegation that such a payment was made. The additional written statement filled by the first respondent was in no better terms. B ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rst respondent to Veerappa Chettiar. In this letter, while referring to the earlier payment on Ani 7th of ₹ 1000 by bank draft, the first respondent said that the amount might be credited in the Thanathu account. The letter further stated that the balance will be paid to the addressee and the debt cleared and it need not be mixed up with what was in common. This documentary evidence unmistakably shows that the sum of ₹ 1000 was credited towards the promissory note. The court below, however, considered that the reference in Ex. A. 5 to thanathu account and certain mistakes crept into the entry in Ex. A. 21, relating to the receipt of ₹ 1000 by draft, showed that the amount was not earmarked towards the promissory note but ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t respondent that the sum of ₹ 1,000 was paid towards some other account. He never set up that case at the earliest opportunity. If his case was true, there is no explanation why he could not have mentioned it in the counter affidavit in the application for amendment of the plaint, or at least in the additional written statement. Except his assertion, there is nothing to show that the sum was paid towards a transaction other than the promissory note. We reverse the finding of the court below and hold that the last payment of ₹ 1,000, was also towards the suit promissory note. 4. If that be the case, as we hold, the question then is, whether the suit was within time. The court below finds that between 14-6-1952 and 3-9-1960, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... limitation and it does not extend the time prescribed. All that the section does is to extend a concession, namely, that notwithstanding the expiry of the period of limitation during the holidays, the suit, appeal or application may be filed on the day the court reopens. It follows, therefore, that where the limitation expires during the holidays, after that event and before the court reopens, there is no question of making any acknowledgment so as to give a fresh start of limitation. This is because an acknowledgment has to be made before expiry of the period prescribed for institution of a suit and the period of limitation having expired during the holidays, thereafter there can be no acknowledgment of the debt merely because S. 4 says t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
