Judgment:
Srinivasan, J.
1. The common question arise in these civil revision petitions and the second appeals is, whether the suits are barred by limitation? The suits have been filed by different persons against the same set of defendants. The first defendant is a partnership firm and defendants 2 to 5 are its partners. The debts in all the cases commenced on 10.10.1974 and ended on 9.4.1977. Defendants 2 to 5 filed I.P. No. 27of 1977 for adjudicating themselves as insolvents on 2.7.1977. One of the creditors by name Kamalam was not included in the array of parties, she filed an application to implead herself as party and the same was ordered. Consequently, the original petition in the I.P. was amended and the true copy of the amended petition was filed in court on 17.4.1980. The following tabular statement will give the particulars of the present suits.
______________________________________________________________________________Date of Suit Name of D.M.C., Sub Court, High Court,plaint claim plaintiff & Madurai Madurai Madrasrank in I.P. No. O.S. No. A.S. No. C.R.Ps/S.As.27 of 77______________________________________________________________________________Rs.27.11.1980 1,829.62 T.K.Kumaraswamy,67th respondent 1303/81 229/85 CRP.570/872.7.1981 2,359.44 T.V.Mahadevan,91st respondent 1292/81 228/85 CRP.571/877.7.1981 2,222.33 T.V.Vijayalakshmi,90th respondent 1290/81 238/85 CRP.572/871.10.1980 4,053.61 T.S.K.Varada Iyer,89th respondent 1029/80 237/85 S.A.260/8715.9.1989 4,006.80 A.R.Vardhani Ammal,22nd respondent 1005/80 221/85 S.A.1041/87
The statement itself shows why revisions have been filed in three of the suits and appeals are filed in the rest. In the said 3 suits the value is below a sum of Rs. 3,000and as per Section 102 of the Code of Civil Procedure, no second appeal would lie. The trial court dismissed the suits as barred by limitation. On appeal, the appellate Judge has taken a view that the true copy filed by the Advocate in the insolvency proceedings on 17.4.1980 would amount to an acknowledgment within the meaning of Section 18 of the Limitation Act and consequently extend the period of limitation. He has considered the rulings relating to the question whether an Advocate would be an authorised agent for the purpose of making an acknowledgment. He has also considered the rulings which deal with acknowledgment under Section 102 of the Limitation Act. Ultimately, he has held that the suits are not barred in view of the filing of the true copy in the insolvency proceedings.
2. In this Court, it is contended by learned Counsel for the defendants 2 to 5, that the suits are barred by limitation inasmuch as they have been filed within a period of three years from 9.4.1977 the date on which the debts ended or from 2.7.1977 when the Insolvency Petition was filed. According to him even if the filing of the Insolvency Petition would amount to an acknowledgment of the debts due to the plaintiffs in these cases, the amendment of the petition consequent to the addition of new party and filing of true copy in the court on 17.4.1980 would not amount to an acknowledgment within the meaning of law.
3. Per contra, it is contended by learned Counsel for the plaintiffs, that when the advocate appearing for the petitioners in the Insolvency Petition filed a true copy in court on 17.4.1980 after signing the same that would amount to an acknowledgment in law as the said copy contains the full details of amounts due to various creditors including the plaintiffs in the present proceedings. Learned Counsel submits that Section 18 of the Limitation Act requires an acknowledgment of liability in respect of their right made in writing signed by the party. According to him, the advocate is the authorised agent of the party and the copy filed on 17.4.1980 contains an acknowledgment of liability of defendants 2 to 5. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Shapoor Freedom Mezda v. Durga Prasad Chamaria and Ors. : [1962]1SCR140 . In that case, the Supreme Court said that the statement on which a plea of acknowledgment is based must relate to a present subsisting liability though the exact nature or the specific character of the said liability may not be indicated in words. Words used in the acknowledgment must, however, indicate the existence of jural relationship between the parties such as that of debtor and creditor, and it must appear that the statement is made with the intention to admit such jural relationship. Such intention can be inferred by implication from the nature of the admission, and need not be expressed in words.
4. Similar ruling is found in Lakshmiratan Cotton Mills Co. Limited v. The Aluminium Corporation of India Limited : [1971]2SCR623 , on which also reliance is placed by the learned Counsel. In that judgment the Supreme Court held that generally speaking a liberal construction of the statement in question should be given. That of course does not mean that where a statement is made without intending to admit the existence of jural relationship such intention should be fastened on the person making the statement by an involved and far-fetched reasoning.
5. Learned Counsel drew my attention to a judgment by a Full Bench of this Court in Thadi Murali Mohana Reddi v. Medapati Gangaraju and Ors. : AIR1941Mad772 . The question which was considered by the Full Bench was whether an acknowledgment by a Hindu father who is adjudicated insolvent of a debt made in the schedule of debts filed by him in insolvency would save limitation against his undivided sons and would it make any difference if the acknowledgment was made after the insolvent had become divided in status from his sons subsequent to the insolvency. The above ruling cannot be applicable to the present case.
6. In so far as the rulings of the Supreme Court are concerned, in my view, they are against the plaintiffs themselves. The Supreme Court has only pointed out that an acknowledgment should be clear and made with the intention to admit the jural relationship of debtor and creditor. In the present cases, what is relied on as an acknowledgment is only a filing of a true copy of the Insolvency Petition on 17.4.1980 in the First Additional Subordinate Court, Madurai. As I have already stated, the fresh copy had to be filed because of the addition of one more creditor as a party. In the original insolvency petition an entry would have been made to the effect that such a person has been impleaded as party by order made in the interlocutory application. Consequently, the defendants 2 to 5 would have been called upon to file a neat copy of the amended petition. The copy so filed is marked as Ex. A-5 in these present cases. In Ex. A-5 the date is entered as 2.7.1977, the date on which the Original Insolvency Petition. The Advocate has signed it as true copy. In fact he has not even written the words 'true copy' but only 'T.C.' and signed below it. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners/appellants that the filing into court the neat copy on 17.4.1980 in the Insolvency Petition would amount to an acknowledgment as per Section 18 of the Limitation Act is not questionable. It is well known that whenever a plaint or petition is amended by addition of parties or deletion of parties, the necessary entries will be made only in the original plaint or petition and the counsel on record will be called upon to file corrected or amended copy of the plaint or petition. Filing of such copy would not amount to filing of fresh petition or plaint. In the present cases, the filing of the neat copy in the Insolvency Petition would not amount to a fresh acknowledgment within the meaning of Section 18 of the Limitation Act.
7. It is next contended that when new parties are added in the proceedings, the filing of the fresh copy of the petition would amount to fresh institution and fresh an admission of the existence of the debts once again by the party concerned on the date on which the copy is present into court. I do not agree. Section 21 of the Limitation Act reads thus:
Effect of substituting or adding new plaintiff or defendant (1) where after institution of a suit, a new plaintiff or defendant is substituted or added the suit shall, as regards him, be deemed to have been instituted when he was made a party.
Provided that where the court is satisfied that the omission to include a new plaintiff or defendant was due to a mistake made in good faith it may direct that the suit as regards such plaintiff or defendant shall be deemed to have been instituted at any earlier date.
This section clearly points out that the suit can be deemed to have been instituted only when he was made party thereto, but against all the other parties the suit is instituted on the original date on which it was filed. In the present cases, in the insolvency petition one Kamalam is added as creditors and the amended copy was filed into court on 17.4.1980. This would not amount to a fresh acknowledgment as there is no intention on the part of the Advocate or parties thereto to acknowledge the liability of the creditors therein in the Insolvency Petition. As held by the Supreme Court, in the rulings cited above, there must be clear intention to admit such jural relationship between the parties. It cannot be inferred in filing the neat copy into court, the parties thereto or the Advocate had an intention to admit the jural relationship of the parties as debtors and creditors. I am not going to consider the question whether the Advocate is an authorised agent to acknowledge the debts or not, even assuming him as an agent, in the present cases, there is no acknowledgment there is no intention to admit the jural relationship of the parties. Consequently, the view taken by the lower appellate court is clearly unsustainable and the civil revision petitions and the second appeals are allowed. The suits are dismissed but in the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs.
8. It is stated by the learned Counsel for the respondents that after the admission of the C.R.Ps. and the second appeals, defendants 2 to 5 were directed to deposit certain amounts in court and that the said amounts are lying in court deposits. In view of the dismissal of the suits, the defendants are entitled to withdraw the amount deposited by them.