1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, APPELLATE SIDE NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR SECOND APPEAL NO. 243 OF 2009 Vidarbha Coop. Marketing Society thr. Branch Manager Vs. State of Maharashtra thr. Collector Gadchiroli Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders Shri A. D. Girdekar Adv for appellant. Shri K. S. Dhote AGP for respondents. CORAM: C. L. PANGARKAR J. Dated: 9 th OCTOBER, 2009. Heard. This Second Appeal is preferred against the judgment and decree passed by the Civil Judge Senior Division and confirmed by the District Judge. The plaintiff is the appellant. The plaintiff is a transporter. He had undertaken the contract of transportation of levy sugar at the places directed by the Government. Accordingly the plaintiff started transporting the sugar from one place to other and the necessary bills were submitted to the Government. Plaintiff contends that those bills pertain to the period from July 1987 to February 1993. On 2 18.01.1995 plaintiff was informed by defendant No. 2 that the bills that were submitted by him were for an exaggarated amount and he was also informed that in fact a sum of Rs. 1,03,561/- was paid in excess to the plaintiff. Plaintiff was directed to repay this amount. Plaintiff under protest deposited a sum of Rs. 51,785.50 Ps. Inspite of this deposit accounts were not settled. It is the contention of the appellant that respondent defendant had demanded the accounts from the plaintiff by letter dated 16.03.1999 and plaintiff had supplied the necessary accounts to the defendant respondent by letter dated 21.08.1999. Plaintiff submits that defendant is not paying the amount and hence the suit. Suit was resisted by the respondent defendant. The defendant’s contention was that, infact defendant respondent had paid excess amount and defendant was not liable to pay any amount. Next contention that was raised was that suit was barred by limitation. Trial Court held that defendant owed to the plaintiff Rs. 1,07,430/- but found that the suit was beyond limitation. Trial Court therefore dismissed the suit. Plaintiff therefore preferred an appeal. Appellate Court also found that the defendant owed to the plaintiff Rs. 1,07,430/- but found further that suit was barred by limitation 3 and as a result dismissed the appeal. Plaintiff therefore preferred this appeal. There are two concurrent findings of fact that suit is barred by limitation. Learned counsel for the appellant submits before me that suit is not barred by limitation because of the fact that the defendant respondent had written a letter on 16.03.1999 to the plaintiff demanding the accounts from the plaintiff which were supplied on 21.08.2000. The counsel for the appellant submits that these two letters were in fact in the form of acknowledgment and therefore the suit as is filed on 21.11.2000 was quite within limitation. He relied on a decision reported in Food Corporation of India Vs. Assam State Cooperative marketing & Consumer Federation Ltd. And Others (2004)12 Supreme Court Cases 360. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court have held that the letters forming part of chain of correspondence and official record could be treated as acknowledgment and the acknowledgment need not be accompanied by a promise to pay either expressly or even by implication. Although the letters as stated by the learned counsel may be assumed to be acknowledgments as is contended still these 4 acknowledgments were not given within 3 years from the date from which the amount became recoverable. The pleadings go to show that amount that is claimed by the plaintiff is in respect of the year 1987 to 1993. Acknowledgment is beyond the period of 3 years from 1993. In view of this I do not find that the Courts below have erred in holding that the suit was barred by limitation. There is no substantial question of law. Second Appeal is dismissed in limine. JUDGE svk 5 6 7