Judgment :- 1. Plaintiff is the appellant. He sued the defendant for balance due on accounts. Plaintiff is the owner of a rice mill, from whom the defendant used to purchase rice on credit. According to the plaintiff, a sum of Rs. 1767.74P. was due as on 15th September, 1964. The suit was filed on 29 31965. Defendant contended that his last purchase on credit was in March 1960, and so the suit was barred by limitation. He also stated that all amounts due, had been discharged by him. The trial court decreed the suit. But on appeal, the learned Subordinate Judge has reversed that decision, and dismissed the suit holding that the claim is barred by limitation. 2. I see no reason to interfere with the judgment of the learned appellate Judge. It is admitted that the last purchase on credit by the defendant was on 14 31960. After that date also there were purchases, but they were all cash purchases. The plaintiff would put forward the case that after the balance was struck on the 14th of March, 1960 there was an agreement by the defendant to pay in instalments, and some payments by cheque were also made. He wants the court to construe these payments as amounting to acknowledgment of the debt, under S.19 of the Limitation Act. This is not possible. The article of the Limitation Act applicable to the transaction is Art.14 (Art.52 of the old Act), Under that Article even though goods were delivered to the defendant from time to time on account, the cause of action will be one for all the items delivered, and the starting point of limitation in respect of each item of account must be taken to be the date of delivery of the goods under that item of account. The last date of delivery cannot be taken to be the date of delivery of goods on earlier occasions. (See Narayana Pillai v. Narayanan AIR. 1957 Kerala 93); Atmaram Vinayak v. Lalji Lakhamsi (AIR.1940 Bombay 158) and Firm Gulabrai v. Firm Ilahi Bux-(AIR. 1945 Allahabad 185). In the present case as already indicated, the last purchase, and the delivery of the goods was on the 14th of March 1960. The payment by cheque cannot save limitation of the goods already sold and delivered. 1957 Kerala 93); Atmaram Vinayak v. Lalji Lakhamsi (AIR.1940 Bombay 158) and Firm Gulabrai v. Firm Ilahi Bux-(AIR. 1945 Allahabad 185). In the present case as already indicated, the last purchase, and the delivery of the goods was on the 14th of March 1960. The payment by cheque cannot save limitation of the goods already sold and delivered. The plaintiff has no case that there was a settlement on 14th March 1960 and that thereafter the defendant agreed to pay in instalments. There is nothing in support of this, either in the plaintiff's notice Ext. A7 or in his plaint. There are also no materials to support it. Therefore, the article of the Limitation Act to be applied is, Art.14 and when that is applied, all purchases earlier to 14th March, 1960, are barred. The alleged settlement must be ruled out for the further reason that no accounts were signed by the defendant or his agent. The plaintiff also has no such case. "Where in a suit for price on account of goods supplied to defendant there is no allegation in plaint of any writing signed by the defendant, Art.64 does not apply. The case is governed by Art.52" Shambhoo Prasad v. Firm Dindayal Deokaran (AIR. 1950 Nagpur 228). The result, therefore, is that the plaint claim is barred by limitation. The decree of the lower appellate court is confirmed, and this Second Appeal dismissed.