R.S.A. No. 482 of 2008 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 482 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision: 20.05.2009 Nirmal Singh @ Nimma ....appellant versus M/s Rangpuri Spray Company, Kotkapura ....respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present: - Mr. I.S. Brar, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Surinder Garg, Advocate, for the respondent. *** VINOD K. SHARMA, J. (ORAL) C.M. No. 1490-C of 2008 As per office report, requisite court fee has been filed. The delay in filing the court fee is condoned. C.M. is allowed. R.S.A. No. 482 & C.M. No. 1491-C of 2008 This regular second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 14.12.2006 passed by the learned Courts below decreeing the suit for recovery, filed by the plaintiff/respondent. The suit was brought by the plaintiff/respondent on the pleadings, that the plaintiff/respondent was a firm registered with the Registrar of Firms, which deals with pesticides, and is maintaining R.S.A. No. 482 of 2008 (O&M) -2- regular account book in ordinary course of business. The defendant/appellant was also dealing in pesticides. There was a mutual open running account between the parties, and that both the parties maintained the accounts in course of business. The defendant/appellant made purchases of pesticides on different dates, detailes of which were given in the plaint. It was pleaded that a sum of Rs.1,30,000/- was paid by cheque, and thereafter last payment was made on 16.5.1996 for Rs.20,000/-, thus, leaving a balance of Rs.2,27,873.48 paise. The learned Courts below, on appreciation of evidence, accepted the plea raised by the plaintiff/respondent and decreed the suit. The plea of the defendant/appellant that the suit was barred by limitation as last sale transaction took place on 1.11.1995, was rejected, as it was proved on record that part payment of Rs.20,000/- was made by the defendant/appellant on 16.5.1996, and the suit was filed within three years from the date of part payment. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that the appeal raises the following substantial question of law: - "Whether the learned Courts below mis-read the pleadings and evidence to hold the suit to be within limitation, though it was proved that last transaction between the parties had taken place on 1.11.1995?" In support of the substantial question of law, the learned counsel for the appellant contends, that the cause of action for recovery arose to the plaintiff/respondent against the purchase of pesticides. Once it was proved that the last transaction had taken place on 1.11.1995, the suit filed was prima facie barred by limitation, thus, the learned Courts below committed an error in diciding the issue of limitation against the R.S.A. No. 482 of 2008 (O&M) -3- defendant/appellant. On consideration, I find no force in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant. It was proved that there was mutually running account between the parties, and the payment used to be made from time to time, and adjusted in the account. It has been proved that the last payment was made on 16.5.1996 for a sum of Rs.20,000/-. Once the part payment was made out of the outstanding amount, the limitation was to be counted from the date of said payment. The finding recorded by the learned Courts below, therefore, is in consonance with the settled law. The substantial question of law raised is answered against the appellant. No merit. Dismissed. (Vinod K. Sharma) Judge May 20, 2009 R.S.