(O&M) M/S Reliable Agro Engg. Service Pvt. Ltd v. Tarsem Singh

IN T

M/s Reliable Ag Tarsem Singh (s

CORAM : HO

Present: Mr

Mr

Res

Vid

MANDEEP PA

1.

plaintiff, Reliab decree dated 10 judgment and decreeing the su Brief Facts

2.

plaintiff, a duly Raj Sondhi, ins ₹57,311.05 com towards interest THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJ AT CHANDIGA -.-

RS

Re Da

gro Engineering Services Pvt. Lt VERSUS since deceased) through LR ON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MAND r. Rohit Sud, Advocate and r. Sameesh Bassi, Advocate for th spondent was proceeded ex-parte de order dated 17.09.2025 -.-

ANNU, J. e present Regular Second Appe le Agro Engineering Services Pv

0.08.1988 passed by the learned decree dated 15.04.1987 of th uit of the plaintiff, has been rever e brief facts necessary for adj y incorporated company through stituted the present suit on 17.0 mprising ₹34,971.05 as balance t and extension charges at the a

JAB AND HARYANA ARH SA-1356-1989 (O&M) served on:-24.09.2025 ate of Decision : 26.09.2025 td

....Appellant

....Respondent DEEP PANNU he appellant. e eal has been filed by the appella vt. Ltd., assailing the judgment lower appellate Court whereby he learned Sub Judge, Jalandh rsed. judication are that the appella h its Managing Director Shri Ba

07.1984 for recovery of a sum e principal amount and ₹22,34 agreed rate of 18% per annum. T

-ant– har, ant– albir m of 40/-

plaintiff's case tubes and flaps Out of this, the leaving the afor to pay the outsta

3.

purchased, took payment and, th

4.

On issues, including Court are as und

1.

2.

¶3₹2,

4. OP

5.

6.

7.

5.

Par

is that the defendant–responde worth ₹2,62,351.05 during the defendant had admittedly made resaid balance. Despite service o anding amount, leading to institu e defendant, while admitting th k the stand that the entire liabilit herefore, nothing remained due. n the pleadings of the parties, th g Issue No.5 relating to limitati der:- Whether the plaintiff is a dul Whether Balbir Raj Sondhi t by the plaintiff? OPP Whether the defendant purc 62,351.05? OPP Whether the plaintiff is entit PD Whether the suit is barred by If issue No.2 is proved, whe d signed? OPD Relief. rties have led their evidence in su

ent had purchased on credit ty e period 23.12.1980 to 07.02.19 part payments totaling ₹2,27,38 of legal notice, the defendant fai ution of the suit. hat goods worth ₹2,27,380/- w ty stood discharged by making he trial Court framed the necess ion. The issues framed by the t ly incorporated Co.?OPP is duly authorized to institute chased the goods of the value tled to interest. If so, at what ra y time? OPD ether the plaint is not duly verif upport of their case.

- res,

¶9840/-, iled were full sary trial e of ate?

Findings of the

6.

On made by the def limitation woul

17.07.1984, it w in favour of the Findings of the

7.

Ag appellate Court a case of succes Limitation Act, held that limitat begins to run fr lower appellate within the three defendant had m was, therefore, d

8.

Fee Regular Second Submissions of

9.

In appellant that th the Limitation A of a running and e trial Court n appreciation of evidence, the tr fendant was in March 1983 as re ld start from the said date. S was held to be within limitation. plaintiff for recovery of ₹34,971 e lower appellate Court grieved, the defendant preferr reversed the findings of the trial ssive supplies of goods on cred 1963, corresponding to Article 5 tion of three years for recovery o rom the date of each delivery an Court found that only goods w e years preceding the filing of made payments of ₹1,49,390/-. T dismissed as barred by limitation eling aggrieved, the appellant-p d Appeal. f learned counsel for the appell the present second appeal, it h he lower appellate Court has err Act inasmuch as the dealings bet d mutual open account and not

rial Court held that the last paym eflected in Ex.P42, and therefore Since the suit had been filed Consequently, the suit was decr

1.05 with interest. ed an appeal. The learned low l Court holding that the present w dit and, therefore, Article 14 of 52 of the 1988 Act, would apply of price of goods sold and delive nd not from the last payment. T worth ₹1,26,176/- had been suppl the suit and that against this, Thus, no liability subsisted. The n. plaintiff has preferred the pres lant has been argued on behalf of red in law in applying Article 14 tween the parties were in the nat mere isolated supplies. It is furt

- ment on reed wer was y. It ered lied sent 4 of ture

contended that i creditor to adjus therefore, the d starting point of in M/s Singh S wherein it was parties, Article would commenc entered. Findings

10.

Hav the appellant, th importance in th that the cause of is that the defe December 1980 reciprocal deali current account statements of ac debit or credit e the case is squar period of three y

11.

distinguishable. in terms of Sections 59 to 61 of t st the payments made by the de date of last payment, i.e. March f limitation. Reliance has been pl Steel Sales v. M/s Manjit Mac held that in case of running an 1 of the Schedule to the Limitat ce from the close of the financi ving considered the submission his Court is of the opinion that he present appeal. The pleadings f action arose from the purchase endant had been purchasing g 0 to February 1984. There is ings between the parties so as t. The entries relied upon in E ccount maintained by the plainti entries arising out of reciprocal rely covered by Article 14 of the years from the date of delivery o e reliance placed on M/s Singh S In that case, the Court found on

the Contract Act, it was open to ebtor towards outstanding bills a h 1983, ought to be treated as laced on the judgment of this Co chinery Works, 2018(3) PLR 5 nd continuous account between tion Act would apply and limitat ial year in which the last item w ns made by the learned counsel the question of limitation assum s in para 6 of the plaint clearly st e of goods. The plaintiff's own c oods on different occasions fr no plea or proof of any mutu s to constitute a mutual open Ex.P42 and Ex.P43 are unilate iff-company and do not reflect obligations. In such circumstanc e Limitation Act which prescribe f goods. Steel Sales's case (supra) is clea n facts that there was a mutual op

- and, ourt 527, tion was for mes tate case rom ual, eral any ces, es a arly

and current acc debits and credi the Limitation account was mu by the plaintiff Article 1.

12.

As Act, it is true tha debt to which i such payment to enlarge the stat determine which limitation for re date of their del payments towar supplied beyon argument based aid of the appell

13.

Vie claims which re would be with defendant withi liability survive limitation from t count between the parties which its arising out of reciprocal deali Act. In the present case, there utual or open in nature. Rather, i f-company on credit. Therefore regards the argument based on at when a debtor makes a payme it should be appropriated, the cr o any lawful debt due. Howeve tutory period of limitation. Th h particular debt stands discharg ecovery of the price of goods s livery. Therefore, even if the pla rds earlier debts, the claim fo d three years of the suit rema d on Sections 59–61 of the Cont lant. ewed thus, the finding of the lo elate to deliveries within three hin time is unexceptionable. S in the said period exceeded the es against him. The trial Cou the date of last payment.

h was subject to regular entries ings, thereby attracting Article 1 e is no evidence to show that t is a case of successive sales m e, Article 14 would apply and n Sections 59 to 61 of the Contr ent without specifying the particu reditor has the discretion to adj r, this principle does not extend he appropriation of payments m ged, but it does not alter the fact t sold and delivered begins from aintiff had discretion to appropr or recovery of the price of go ains barred under Article 14. T tract Act, thus, cannot come to wer appellate Court that only su years of the institution of the Since the payments made by e value of the goods supplied, urt fell in error in extending

- s of 1 of made not ract ular just d or may that iate ods

Conclusion

14.

Acc dated 10.08.198 merit and is here

15.

Pen

September 26, 2 tripti

Wh

Wh cordingly, this Court finds no 88 passed by the lower appella eby dismissed. nding application(s), if any, also 2025

(M

hether speaking/non-speaking : Speaki hether reportable : Yes.

error in the judgment and dec ate Court. The appeal is devoid stands disposed of. MANDEEP PANNU) JUDGE ing

- cree