The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the matter Rajinder Valecha & Anr Vs. Satpal & ANR (RFA 590/2016) on 02.02.2018 by discussing Section 18 and Section 19 of the Limitation Act, 1963 held that acknowledgment should be executed before the expiry of prescribed period for a suit in respect of any property or right and such acknowledgment of liability in respect of such property or right should be in writing signed by the party against whom such property or right is claimed. If both these requirements are met then a fresh period of limitation shall be computed from time when the acknowledgment was so signed.
In a suit for recovery of Rs. 35 Lakhs instituted on 16.02.2016, the respondents paid the appellant, the cash amount of Rs. 45,000/-, Rs.1 lacs and Rs. 3 lacs on 06.02.2009, 06.04.2010 and 13.12.2015 respectively.
The issue before the Hon’ble Court was whether the said suit was barred by the period of limitation under the Limitation Act, 1963.
The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi upheld the decision of the Ld. ADJ and decided that the said suit is barred by limitation. By relying upon the provisions of Section 18 of the Limitation Act, the court held that the acknowledgment of liability must be made prior to the expiry of the period of limitation of suit.
The Court further relied upon Section 19 of the Act and held that Section 19 would be as relevant as Section 18 of the Limitation Act. As per the said provision where payment is made on account of interest or debt before the expiry of prescribed period of limitation, a fresh period of limitation shall be computed from time to time when the payment was so made. The proviso provides that there should be an acknowledgment of payment in the handwriting of the person making the payment.