RSA 4320 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYNA AT CHANDIGARH. RSA 4320 of 2010 Date of decision:4.5.2011 Ramesh Kumar Petitioner vs. Paramjit Singh and another Respondent Present: Mr. Jaideep Verma, Advocate. M.M.S.BEDI,J. Delay in filing of the appeal is condoned. CM 13029 C of 2010 stands disposed of. The plaintiff-appellant filed a suit for recovery of Rs.50,000/- along with interest against the defendant- respondents. The suit has been dismissed by the courts below being barred by time. Receipt dated 5.1.2002 for a sum of Rs. 15,000/- singed by the plaintiff has been relied upon by him for claiming the extension of period of limitation. The courts below have held that the plaintiff has been able to prove that he had deposited a sum of Rs.50,000/- for supply of gas and a sum of Rs.15,000/- has been paid by the defendant- respondent to the plaintiff on 5.1.2002. The payment was made by the plaintiff on 27.1.1996 as per receipt Ex. P4. Three years expired on 27.1.1999. As per the provisions of Section 19 of the Indian Limitation Act, if any part of payment is made by the defendant, the limitation is extended. In the present case the alleged acknowledgment of debt is beyond the period of limitation, as such, the suit has been held to be barred by time., Learned counsel for the plaintiff- appellant has submitted that RSA 4320 of 2010 2 the defendant- respondents were proceeded against ex-parte. Reliance has been placed on Sant Lal Mahton vs Kamla Prasad and others AIR 1951 SC 477 and The Kangra District Whole Sale Co-operative Supplies and Marketing Society Limited vs M/S Buta Mal Sohan Lal 1996(3) LJR 760. A perusal of the judgment in Sant Lal Mahton's case indicates that the provisions of Sections 19 and 20 of the Indian Limitation Act have been clarified to the effect that the sections require that payment should be made within the period of limitation and it does not require that the acknowledgment should be made within that period. It is not the case of the plaintiff that the payment had been made within the period of limitation or that the receipt of acknowledgment of debt was executed subsequently. The plaintiff has sought to establish that the payment was made vide receipt dated 5.1.2002. In view of the said circumstances, the ratio of the judgment, cited by counsel for the appellant, is not of any help to the appellant. No ground is made out for interference in the concurrent finding of fact, arrived by the courts below regarding the suit of the plaintiff being barred by time. Dismissed. May 4 ,2011 ( M.M.S.BEDI ) TSM JUDGE