Short Note : 1. The plaintiff had filed the suit for recovery of Rs. 999 contending that this was an amount which was a part of a bigger sum of Rs. 1,500 which was rent and advanced to the defendant, and for which the defendant had executed a hundi. It was also contended that the defendant had in an insolvency proceeding acknowledged a sum of Rs. 2,700 to be due and payable to the plaintiff and this sum of Rs. 2,700 included the aforesaid sum of Rs. 1,500 as well as another sum of Rs. 1,200. The defendant, while controverting the plaint allegations, inter alia, contended that the admission made by him in the insolvency proceedings could not be treated as an acknowledgment, and it was also contended that even if treating that as an acknowledgment it was of the 23rd day of August 1965, and the suit having been filed on 23-08-1968 was still barred by time. The trial Court negatived the contentions of the defendant and decreed the suit. 2. Held : As regards the question whether the admission in the application before the insolvency proceedings of the loan being advanced by the plaintiff to the defendant, in the opinion of this Court, does amount to a good acknowledgment. Thodi Murli Mohana Reddi v. Medapati Gangaraju and Co. 1941 Mad. 772 relied on. 3. As regards the other contention that the suit having been filed on 23-08-1968, was barred by time, this Court is of opinion that it has also no substance. In view of the clear language employed in S. 13 of the Limitation Act, time will start running from the date of acknowledgment. Reading this section along with section 12 (1) of the said Act, the first date i.e. 23-08-1965 which is the date of acknowledgment shall be excluded, and excluding that date the suit filed on 23-08-1968 is stilt in time. Someshwar Bapurao Nilakhe v. Nivritti Buburao Gholare, AIR 1973 Bom. 147 , relied on. Revision dismissed.