Delhi High Court
M/S.Mohan Meakin Ltd. vs Mr.Krishan Dutt Yadav on 6 December, 2007
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
RSA No. 150/2006
# M/s. Mohan Meakin Ltd. ........ Appellant
! through: Mr. B.D.Batra, Advocate
VERSUS
$ Mr. Krishan Dutt Yadav ........ Respondent
^ through: Mr. Jagat Rana, Advocate
% DATE OF DECISION: 6.12.2007
CORAM:
* Hon'ble Mr.Justice Pradeep Nandrajog
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed
to see the judgment? Y
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Y
3. Whether judgment should be reported in Digest? Y
: PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. (ORAL)
1. Following question of law is framed:-
"Whether Ex. PW-1/1 can be treated as the statement
of account attracting Article 1 of the Limitation Act
1963?"
2. Arguments heard.
3. Relevant facts are that the respondent filed a suit for
recovery of Rs.47,926/- against the appellant alleging that he
was providing taxis and coaches to the appellant for
transportation and as and when a vehicle was hired and
services were rendered a bill used to be raised. Money due
used to be entered in the books of account maintained by the
page 1 of 6
respondent. That the account was a running account. That
after 30.9.1999 appellant stopped hiring vehicles from the
respondent. That for services rendered Rs.1,76,808/- were due
and payable out of which a sum of Rs.1,48,882/- was received
by the respondent. That Rs.27,926/- remained outstanding. It
was stated that the outstanding amount pertained to 3 bills
being bill No. 50033 dated 4.2.99, bill No. 51759 dated 5.7.99
and bill No. 52448 dated 30.9.99. It was stated that the last bill
was in sum of Rs.9,397/-. It was stated that since Rs.27,926/-
remained outstanding respondent was entitled to interest @
24% per annum i.e. Rs. 20,000/-.
4. The suit was filed on 27.9.2002.
5. Apart from other issues, an issue was framed
whether the suit was barred by limitation. The reason thereof
was that the appellant denied any running account being
maintained. It claimed that limitation commenced when
alleged service was stated to be rendered.
6. Other issues were also framed. But I need not deal
with the same for the reason learned counsel for the parties
have debated at the bar only in relation to the question of law
as afore framed.
7. The respondent who appeared as his witness did not
produce any account books. The typed stated statement of
page 2 of 6
account Ex. PW-1/1 was thus held by the learned Trial Judge not
to be a proof that parties were maintaining a running account.
I note that the respondent did not allege that he was
maintaining accounts in an electronic form and that the print
out Ex. PW-1/1 was a computer generated copy thereof.
8. Learned Appellate Court has differed. Learned
Appellate Court has held that Ex. PW-1/1 has to be treated as
the statement of account notwithstanding that books of
account were not maintained. This limitation has been
reckoned from the end of the financial year in which the last bill
was raised.
9. Suffice would it be to state that an extract from a
document or an entry pertaining to a document is secondary
evidence of the primary.
10. Bills and vouchers are primary documents pertaining
to commercial transactions. Law treats a statement of account
maintained in the normal course of business as good evidence
of what is recorded therein. Thus, a statement of account has
to be proved with reference to and on production of the books
of account. If kept in an electronic made, proof has to be as
per Section 65B of the Evidence Act.
11. It is not the case of the respondent that appellant
was his sole customer and therefore the loose sheets (2 pages),
page 3 of 6
Ex. PW-1/1 was the only account maintained by him.
12. Under the circumstances, the inevitable conclusion
has to be that the learned Appellate Court has wrongly applied
the law by treating the typed statement Ex. PW-1/1 as the
statement of account.
13. But, for said reason appellant would not get full
victory. Article 1 of the Limitation Act 1963 reads as under:-
"Description of suit Period of limitation Time from which
period begins to run
For the balance due Three years The close of the
on a mutual, open year in which the
and current last item admitted
account, where or proved is entered
there have been in the account; such
reciprocal demands year to be
between the parties. computed as in the
account."
14. Since Ex. PW-1/1 has been held by me not to be
proved as an open, current and mutual account, for purposes of
limitation Article 1 of the Limitation Act 1963 would not be
attracted.
15. As noted above, out of the three outstanding bills,
bill in sum of Rs.9,397/- is dated 30.9.99.
16. It is urged by learned counsel for the appellant that
the bill relates to an alleged service rendered between 20.9.99
and 25.9.99 and hence limitation commenced on 26.9.1999.
17. I am afraid, after a transaction is completed and a
bill is raised, limitation would commence when payment under
page 4 of 6
the bill is refused.
18. Pertaining to the other two bills I note that payment
was refused in the respective month when the bills were raised.
Pertaining to bill in sum of Rs.9,397/- payment was refused
after the bill was raised i.e. after 30.9.99.
19. Thus, the suit would be within limitation as regards
said bill in sum of Rs.9,397/-.
20. The bill in question along with other bills have been
proved as Ex. PW-1/2 collectively. I find no term in the bills that
if not paid within a particular date the same shall be liable to be
paid with interest @ 24% per annum. Thus, interest payable to
the respondent would be in terms of the Interest Act 1978 i.e.
at rate which was offered by Scheduled Banks and with effect
from the date demand for interest was made.
21. Demand was raised vide Ex. PW-1/3 only on
11.9.2002.
22. The appeal is accordingly disposed of modifying the
impugned judgment and decree by decreeing the suit in sum of
Rs.9,397/- together with interest @ 10% per annum with effect
from 11.9.2002 till said sum is paid.
23. The respondent would be entitled to proportionate
costs.
24. LCR be returned.
page 5 of 6
December 06, 2007 PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.
mm
page 6 of 6
