1. The plaintiff's case as stated in the plaint is that the defendant used to take loans from the plaintiff from time to time and that an account of what was due from him was made up on 8th October, 1917. On that day a sum of Rs. 359-12-0 was found due from the defendant to the plaintiff. The defendant acknowledged it and affixed his signature in the account book of the plaintiff. The basis of the plaintiff's case is stated in para, 4 of the plaint to be the said adjustment of account on 8th October, 1913 acknowledged and signed by the defendant.
2. No suit can be maintained upon a mere acknowledgment of a debt. An acknowledgment only enures to the benefit of the creditor for the purpose of saving limitation under Article 19 of the Lim. Act, if the acknowledgment is made before the original debt is time barred, but the basis of a suit is always the original debt. No doubt under Article 64 of the Lim. Act a suit may be brought within three years upon accounts stated between the parties. “An account stated” is one where several cross items are set off one against the other and the balance is struck off in favour of one of the parties in such a case the law implies a new promise by the other party to pay the balance in consideration not merely of past debts but also of the extinguishment of the old debts on each side, and hence it is not necessary that a statement of account should be made within the period of limitation for the recovery of several cross-items: Hargopal v. Abdul(1).
3. But the entry in the account of the plaintiff of 8th October, 1913 is merely a statement of the balance which was on that date due to the plaintiff from the defendant and cannot possibly be said to be an “account stated” between the parties under Article 64 of the Lim. Act. Hence the entry in the plaintiff's account book, call it an adjustment of accounts, a balance or an acknowledgment of past debts, cannot in itself be the foundation of a suit in Court. Suits based upon similar entries in account books were dismissed in the following cases: Ganga Prasad v. Ram Dayal(2), Tribhovan Gangaram v. Amina(3), Shankar v. Mukta(4), Debi Prosad v. Ram Ghulam Sahu(5) and Ishar Das v. Earhshan Das(6) (Punjab Chief Court).
4. There is therefore concurrent opinion of all the High Courts on the point. The plaintiff's suit must therefore be dismissed with costs.
V.S/R.K
5. Appeal dismissed.