JUDGMENT Kidwai, J. - There was a contract between Mr. Chhotey Lal and Messers. Charterji and Shambhu Raja for the supply of milk, curd and butter by the former to the latter. Milk was supplied from the 1st January to the 31st March, 1943. On the 30th March, 1946, Mr. Chhotey Lal instituted a suit for the recovery of Rs. 395/- alleging that supplies of the value of Rs. 415/- had been made and a sum of Rs. 50/- had been paid by cheque on the 30th November, 1943. The plant did not give any details of the supply nor did it indicate any rate. Even in the statement of the Plaintiff the weight of the various articles and the rate at which they were being charged were not indicated. 2. The Defendants alleged that they had already paid for whatever they had received and denied that they had made the purchase i respect of which he suit was brought. 3. In support of his case the Plaintiff produced himself and two witnesses. He also produced his note-book and some slips of paper giving the quantity of articles purchased and signed by someone on behalf of the Defendants. The notebook does not bear the name of any customer but the slips are signed by P.W. 2, Munna Misra, who was a servant of the Defendants. 4. No witness gave any evidence about the rates of any article and the learned judge fixed rates at what he considered to be prevailing rates in 1943. He accordingly decreed the suit for Rs. 362-5-4/-. 5. The Defendants have come up in revision and have challenged the findings arrived at by the lower Court. The first plea urged on their behalf is one of limitation. The learned Judge has held, in accordance with the Sale of Goods Act, that limitation for cash purchase began to run from the date of the purchase. He has, however, held that there has been a payment of Rs. 50/- on the 3rd November, 1943, by cheque and that this is an acknowledgment within the meaning of Section 20 of the Limitation Act. This finding is challenged. No cheque has been produced or summoned this case and consequently the acknowledgement of payment does not "appear in writing" in this case. We have any the oral statement of P.W.I. the Plaintiff and D.W.I.(sic) Mr. Chatterji. This finding is challenged. No cheque has been produced or summoned this case and consequently the acknowledgement of payment does not "appear in writing" in this case. We have any the oral statement of P.W.I. the Plaintiff and D.W.I.(sic) Mr. Chatterji. The latter was not asked anything about the payment having been made by cheque. Thus the payment is not sufficient to extend limitation. 6. The learned Advocate for the opposite-party contended that the practice of the Court is not to interfere on questions of limitation u/s 25 of the Small Cause Courts Act unless a real injustice has been done. He relies upon C.P. Clarke v. Aziz Khan 1936 O.W.N. 330 and Lal Jogendra Bakhsh Singh v. Mr. A. Ferns Andrews 1936 O.W.N. 332. 7. There is no doubt that the power of sending for the record is discretionary but it is difficult to understand how, once the record has been sent for and the decree of the trial Court has been found to be not in accordance with law, the High Court can refuse to interfere. Nor do I understand why the plea of limitation should be treated differently from any other plea of law, e.g. res judicata or lack of registration, and why it should not be considered unjust to the Defendants to decree a claim which is barred by the law of limitation. 8. Further the cases referred to clearly lay down the proposition that each case has to be decided on its own merits. In the present case there are other defects in the judgment too. Even if its findings on the amount supplied is maintained although it has relied on at least five unproved documents, Exs. 3, 7, 9, 27 and 32 to arrive at this finding there is no evidence of the rate of supply and the decree of the lower Court would have, in any case, to be set aside. In such circumstances there is no reason not to give effect to the plea of limitation. 9. I accordingly allow this application, set aside the decree of the Court below and dismiss the suit. The applicants will get their costs of both the Courts from the Plaintiff.