Delhi High Court
Abhishek Mohatta vs M/S Spack Engineers & Consultants ... on 4 February, 2019
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ RFA No. 237/2007
% 4th February, 2019
ABHISHEK MOHATTA ..... Appellant
Through: Mr. Sunil Aggarwal, Advocate
(M. No.9810103765).
versus
M/S SPACK ENGINEERS & CONSULTANTS AND ORS.
..... Respondents
Through:
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J. MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
1. This Regular First Appeal filed under Section 96 of the
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) impugns the Judgment of the trial
court dated 09.01.2007 by which the trial court has dismissed the suit for
recovery of Rs. 6,70,000/- filed by the appellant/plaintiff by pleading that
the respondent/defendant had taken a loan from the father of the
appellant/plaintiff and respondents/defendants had confirmed the amount
due vide Letter dated 31.03.2003 under the signatures of the respondent
no. 2/defendant no. 2 who was the partner of respondent no. 1/defendant
no. 1, a partnership firm.
2. The respondents/defendants did not appear before the trial
court also despite service and were proceeded ex parte. Even in this
appeal, the respondents/defendants were served by publication and they
have failed to appear.
3. In my opinion, the trial court was completely unjustified in
dismissing the suit on the ground that the appellant/plaintiff has failed to
prove the liability of the respondents/defendants to pay the principal
amount of Rs. 4,37,913/- inasmuch as the respondents/defendants
through respondent no. 2/defendant no.2 has acknowledged the debt in
writing as required by Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963. This
acknowledgment also operates as a fresh contract to repay the amount as
held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment in the case of
Syndicate Bank v. R. Veeranna & Ors., (2003) 2 SCC 15.
4. In my opinion, this Letter dated 31.03.2003 proved by the
appellant/plaintiff as Ex.PW1/2 is very much an acknowledgment under
Section 18 of the Limitation Act because this letter had asked the
respondent no.1/defendant no.1 to confirm the balance due and the
respondents/defendants to mention the Permanent Account Number of
respondent no. 1/defendant no. 1. On behalf of the respondent no.
1/defendant no. 1, the respondent no. 2/defendant no. 2 has signed this
Letter Ex.PW1/2 dated 31.03.2003 and the Permanent Account Number
of respondent no. 1/defendant no. 1 is mentioned in hand by respondent
no. 2/defendant no. 2, and therefore in my opinion, in the facts of the
present case, this amounts to an acknowledgment because the letter/
Ex.PW1/2 of the appellant/plaintiff asked the respondents/defendants to
give their Permanent Account Number and the same would be towards
an acknowledgment of the debt of Rs. 4,37,913/-.
5. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this appeal is allowed.
The impugned Judgment of the trial court dated 09.01.2007 is set aside.
The suit of the appellant/plaintiff is decreed for a sum of Rs. 4,37,913/-
alongwith pendente lite and future interest @ 12% per annum simple till
payment. The appellant/plaintiff will also be entitled to costs of this
appeal. Decree sheet be prepared. All Pending applications are also
disposed of.
FEBRUARY 04, 2019/Ne VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J
