ORDER:- Revision Petition arises out of a suit filed by the petitioner herein for recovery of a sum of Rs. 184.50 as damages. The respondent is a carpenter. The petitioner placed an order for making some wooden articles in October, 1957, valued at Rs. 172. At the time of the order,the petitioner advanced Rs. 95. It was understood that the finished articles should be delivered on 9th December, 1957. But the respondent delivered the articles only on 16th December, 1957. The petitioner expressed dis-satisfaction that the articles were not in accordance with his taste, and he returned the articles to the carpenter. The respondent agreed to sell the articles and took the balance of Rs.77. He also agreed to pay back the amount, after deducting Rs. 15 towards labour charges. The respondent also executed Exhibit A-1 dated 16th December, 1957, which is in the following terms: “ Since you say that you do not require the soap set vagaira goods, for which you had placed an order, I shall dispose of the finished goods in the neighbourhood and I shall bring and pay you Rs. 95 which I have received till this day, and Rs. 77 received this day, in all for the two items totalling Rs. 172 less Rs. 15 which I shall take for me the balance payable being Rs. 157.” The petitioner called upon the respondent to pay the balance of Rs. 157 from time to time. The respondent sent a reply through the Counsel, Exhibit A-2 dated 1st April, 1958, wherein he stated: “ But as they (articles) were not yet sold, the amount was not paid. There is no time-limit for it. Even now your client is often visiting this place and is seeing them. The articles are also there. My client agrees to your client taking them.” Subsequently, the petitioner filed the present suit, out of which this revision petition arises, for recovery of the amount and also interest. The respondent resisted the suit and pleaded limitation. After hearing arguments on the question of limitation, the learned District Munsif held that the suit was barred by limitation, inasmuch as the plaint was presented after three years of the date on which the cause of action arose, viz., 16th December, 1957. The plaintiff has filed the present revision against the dismissal of his suit. After hearing arguments on the question of limitation, the learned District Munsif held that the suit was barred by limitation, inasmuch as the plaint was presented after three years of the date on which the cause of action arose, viz., 16th December, 1957. The plaintiff has filed the present revision against the dismissal of his suit. The question for consideration in this revision petition is whether the suit is barred by limitation. A reading of Exhibit A-2 clearly shows that the respondent acknowledged his liability to pay the amount due and payable by him as found in Exhibit A-1. In his letter, Exhibit A-2, the respondent has stated that he is willing to deliver the articles to the petitioner. He has also stated that there is no time limit for payment of the amount due. In the circumstances, the learned District Munsif was not right in coming to the conclusion that the suit was barred by limitation. Learned Counsel for the petitioner cited three cases in support of his argument. In Sivakasi Match Exporting Co. v. R. Mohanlal Brothers1, a Bench of this Court has observed: “ The defendant expressly acknowledges the fact of the payment of advance and of the failure of performance of the contract, and also impliedly acknowledges his liability to refund that amount ; but he only says that he has adjusted it as against the claim for damages for the breach of contract ............Such a statement can constitute an acknowledgment within the meaning of section 19 of the Limitation Act.” In Ramaswami v. Velayuthan2, it has been observed: “ Where a mortgagor executing a sale deed in favour of the mortgagee, states therein that a certain sum is due from him to the mortgagee on settlement of accounts, and that he is attempting to discharge that debt by sale of certain property under the sale deed, and that for the balance he is making provision for its discharge by execution of other documents, such a statement amounts to an admission of subsisting liability on the date of the sale deed as required by law so as to constitute an acknowledgment.” In Kuppuswami Aiyar v. Sabapathy Pathan3, the plaintiff, in a suit for sale on a mortgage, relied upon a reply notice sent by the mortgagors, in answer to a demand for payment made by the mortgagee, as saving limitation. The notice stated that the mortgagors had usufructuarily mortgaged the lands to a third person and had therein directed him to pay the suit mortgage amount and therefore it was very wrong on the part of the mortgagee to make a demand upon them for the payment of the mortgage amount without receiving the same from the above-mentioned usufructuary mortgagee and that they would not be liable for any costs or damages since they had so directed payment. It was held that the letter in reply to the demand was sufficient acknowledgment within the meaning of section 19 of the Limitation Act. Relying on these authorities, I hold that the suit is not barred by limitation. However, as the respondent has expressed his readiness and willingness to return the articles to the petitioner herein, I remand the suit to the lower Court and also direct the learned District Munsif to exercise his discretion whether it is worthwhile to return the artilces to the petitioner. If he thinks that the articles are not in good condition, he will pass a decree in favour of the petitioner herein as prayed for in his plaint. This revision is ordered accordingly. There will be no order as to costs. V.K. ------------- Order accordingly.