1. We are clearly of opinion that this case comes under Article 64 of the 2nd Schedule attached to the Limitation Act. It is urged that there were no reciprocal demands between the plaintiff and the defendants in this case and that, consequently, Exhibit A cannot be looked on as an account stated. The judgments in Ganga Prasad v. Ram Dayal I.L.R. 23 A. 502 and Shankar v. Mukta I.L.R. 22 B. 513 are relied on in support of this contention. If these judgments do bear the interpretation put on them, we should not be prepared to follow them, as we are clearly of opinion that in order to bring a case under Article 64 it is not necessary that there should be reciprocal demands between the parties. Even if, however, we did accept their view, there would be no ground for interference with the decision of the learned Judge, as the evidence of the 1st defendant examined as the 1st witness for the plaintiff shows that there were reciprocal demands. Under Section 251 of the Contract Act, it is clear that the 2nd defendant is bound by the act of the 1st defendant in settling the account between the partnership and the plaintiff. This appeal must be dismissed with costs.