Chitambaresh, J.
The suit on accounts has been decreed by the court below under the judgment impugned. The last transaction between the plaintiff and the defendant was in July, 1992. The defendant was the distributor of the plaintiff - a Cement Company. Amounts were due to the plaintiff from the defendant for which the suit was laid.
2. The main point urged by the appellant/defendant is as regards limitation. There is no serious dispute as regards the amount due to the plaintiff as per the ledger books. The defendant contended that the suit as filed on 25.05.1996 is barred by limitation. More than three years had elapsed since the last transaction between the plaintiff and the defendant.
3. The defendant had in fact issued Exts.A2 and A4 letters to the plaintiff. Ext.A2 letter inter alia reads as follows: 2 A.S. No. 124 of 1999 "According to my account, the details of which were given to the Marketing Manager at the time of his visit to Calicut an amount of Rs.67,315-67 is due to me after setting off the amount due from me as detailed below." Thus there is an acknowledgment of the liability by defendant in Ext.A2 letter itself. It is however seen that the suit was not filed within three years from Ext.A2 letter.
4. The plaintiff had credited interest on the security deposit made by the defendant. Such security deposit of `10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) would fetch interest. Clause 8 of Ext.A1 dealership agreement provides for the deposit of interest from time to time. It emphatically says that the deposit shall be finally adjusted at the time of termination of the agreement. It shows that the same was an open, current and mutual account.
5. A sum of `1,200/- (Rupees one thousand two hundred only) is seen credited as interest on 31.03.1991. The same is reflected from the ledger book produced by the plaintiff. The suit has been filed on the reopening day after summer recess on 3 A.S. No. 124 of 1999 25.05.1996. There years had not elapsed since the date of credit of interest. The suit filed is in time as has been rightly found by the court below.
The Appeal fails. Dismissed. No costs.
V. CHITAMBARESH JUDGE K. HARILAL JUDGE ncd