JUDGMENT : S. Acharya, J. - The unsuccessful Plaintiffs in both the Courts below have preferred this appeal. 2. The Plaintiffs case, in short, is that the Defendants were retail dealers in grocery articles, and since 1968 they were purchasing such articles from the Plaintiffs grocery shop and making payment for the same in instalments. But for articles delivered to the Defendants till 22-9-1969 the Plaintiffs are entitled to get Rs. 1100.41 Paise from the Defendants and for articles supplied by the Plaintiffs during the period between 13-10-1969 and 14-8-1970 they are to get from the Defendants Rs. 3398.44 Paise, but the Defendants paid only Rs. 3560/- on 14-8-1970 and hence the balance of Rs. 938.84 Paise is due on the Defendants. The Defendants stopped business with the Plaintiffs since 14-8-1970 and did not pay the aforesaid balance amount in spite of demands and service of notice to that effect, and hence the suit. 3. The Defendants denied the Plaintiffs' allegations in toto and stated that the suit has been filed due to the Plaintiffs enmity with the Defendants. 4. The trial Court dismissed the suit by disbelieving the Khata accounts produced by the Plaintiffs and holding further that the Plaintiffs claim is barred by limitation. 5. The appellate Court, while differing from the finding of the trial Court regarding the genuineness of the Khata accounts produced by the Plaintiffs, agreed with the latter's finding on the question of limitation. 6. In this Court the Respondents, while supporting the ultimate conclusion of the lower appellate Court, have in writing challenged the finding of that Court that the Khata accounts filed by the Plaintiffs are genuine. 7. In this appeal it is at first to be decided whether the concurrent finding of the Courts below that the Plaintiffs' claim against the Defendants is barred by limitation is correct or not. 8. Both the Courts below have arrived at the finding that the suit comes within the purview of Article 14 of Part II of the First Division of the Schedule attached to the Limitation Act, and it does not come within the purview of Article 1, as contended by the Appellants, and hence the Plaintiffs claim in the suit is barred by limitations. 9. Admittedly, articles worth Rs. 9. Admittedly, articles worth Rs. 3398.43 Paise were supplied by the Plaintiffs to the Defendants during the period between 13-10-1969 and 14-8-1970 and the Defendants till 14-8-1970 paid Rs. 3560/- to the Plaintiffs towards articles supplied to them by the Plaintiffs. Thus the price of the article supplied between 13-10-1969 and 14-8-1970 is fully covered by the aforesaid payment. Now it is to be seen whether the balance amount, as claimed by the Plaintiffs, outstanding till 14-8-1970 as the balance dues for the supply of the articles to the Defendants from 1968 till 14-8-1970 is barred by limitations or not. 10. It is contended by Mr. J.K. Misra, the learned Counsel for the Appellants, that tbe Khata accounts which have been produced in this case clearly indicate that the suit transactions were independent transactions between the Plaintiffs and the Defendants spread over two years, i.e. 1968-69 and 1969-70, during which period the Defendants paid several amounts to the Plaintiffs and the Plaintiffs supplied articles to the Defendants either on credit or against deposits made by the Defendants with the Plaintiffs during those two years. He submits that supply of articles by the Plaintiffs to the Defendants was independent of the amounts deposited from time to time by the Defendants with the Plaintiffs, and hence the transactions were independent transactions running through 1968 to 1970, and hence they were mutual, open and current account, as contemplated under Article 1 of the Limitation Act, and so the Plaintiffs' balance due against the Defendants outstanding till 14.8.1970 for which the suit is filed is not barred by limitation. 11. On a perusal of the plaint and the relevant evidence on record, it is quite clear that the Plaintiffs supplied grocery articles to the Defendants since 1968 till 14-8-1970 on different dates on deferred payment basis and the Defendants paid the price thereof in instalments. There is no doubt that the payments made by the Defendants were on account of supply of articles made by the Plaintiff to the Defendants on different dates on credit. It is alleged in the plaint that the Defendants were to pay a sum of Rs. 1100.41 Paise for the supply of goods to them by the Plaintiffs upto 22-9-1969 and for the period between 13-10-1969 and 14-8-1970 the Defendants were to pay Rs. 3398 43 Paise, but by 14-8-1970 they paid only a sum of, Rs. It is alleged in the plaint that the Defendants were to pay a sum of Rs. 1100.41 Paise for the supply of goods to them by the Plaintiffs upto 22-9-1969 and for the period between 13-10-1969 and 14-8-1970 the Defendants were to pay Rs. 3398 43 Paise, but by 14-8-1970 they paid only a sum of, Rs. 3560/- to the Plaintiffs towards their arrear dues and did not pay anything thereafter. It is now to be seen whether the account on the basis of which the Plaintiffs have laid their claim in the suit is a mutual, open and current account so as to bring the case within Article 1 of the Limitation Act thereby enabling the Plaintiffs to institute the suit within three years of the supply of the last admitted item entered in the account, as urged on behalf of the Appellants. On the facts alleged in the plaint and asserted in evidence, the accounts do not disclose reciprocity of dealings or independent obligations between the parties constituting 'mutual' account as that word is understood in the legal parlance. From the averments in the plaint itself it is quite clear that the supply of grocery articles made by the Plaintiffs to the Defendants was on the understanding that the Defendants would pay the price thereof in instalments. The amounts which had been paid by the Defendants to the Plaintiffs, as it appears from the averments made in the plaint and from the stand taken by the parties in the suit, were an prices for the articles which the Defendants purchased from the Plaintiffs. Those amounts were paid in discharge of their obligations for taking grocery articles from the Plaintiffs on credit and the said amounts were paid to the Plaintiffs in accordance with the implied agreement between the parties that the Plaintiffs would sell goods to the Defendants and the Defendants would pay the price of the same either in present or in instalments in the gradual course of the transaction of sale and purchase of grocery articles. The payments made by the Defendants did not constitute transactions independent of the sale and purchase of the' grocery articles. The Plaintiffs were under an implied agreement to deliver goods to the Defendants and the Defendants under the said implied agreement were to pay the price of the said goods to the Plaintiffs in instalments. The payments made by the Defendants did not constitute transactions independent of the sale and purchase of the' grocery articles. The Plaintiffs were under an implied agreement to deliver goods to the Defendants and the Defendants under the said implied agreement were to pay the price of the said goods to the Plaintiffs in instalments. It is not the case of the Plaintiffs nor is there anything on record on which it can be said that the amounts paid by the Defendants to the Plaintiffs were advance or credit to the Plaintiffs independent of the transaction of sale and purchase of grocery articles, and there is no instance of repayment of money in cash by the Plaintiffs to the Defendants for the amounts deposited by the latter with the former. From all that has been stated in the plaint and the stand taken by the parties in the suit there is no doubt that the supply of articles by the Plaintiffs and the payment of money by the Defendants to the Plaintiff were in respect of the transaction of supply of grocery articles by the Plaintiffs to the Defendants. It is just possible that at times the balance between supply and the money paid shifted from one side to the other, but for that, or for the fact that the accounts of the said transaction for two years were main tamed separately by carrying forward the balance of the first year to the second year, the accounts cannot be said to be 'mutual' as that word is understood in the legal parlance. The facts of this case are more or less identical with the facts of the case The Hindustan Forest Company Vs. Lal Chand and Others. Their Lordships dealing with the contention put forward in the said case have observed thus: ...One the facts stated by the learned Judges there was no reciprocity of dealings; there were no independent obligations. What in fact had happened was that the sellers had undertaken to make delivery of goods and the buyer had agreed to pay for them and had in part made the payment in advance. There can be no question that in so far as the payments had been made after the goods had been delivered, they had been made towards the price due. There can be no question that in so far as the payments had been made after the goods had been delivered, they had been made towards the price due. Such payments were in discharge of the obligation created in the buyer by the deliveries made to it to pay the price of the goods delivered and did not create any obligation on the sellers in favour of the buyer. The learned Judges do not appear to have taken a contrary view of the result of these payments. In the decision Anumukonda Anjaneyulu Vs. Agricultural Traders, the learned Single Judge dealing with a case on identical facts has observed as follows: 20. ...The course of conduct as exhibited by the entries in the account books abundantly proves that all these transactions were in respect of the transactions of fertilizers. Either the moneys were advanced just sometime before the supplies were made or moneys were paid a few days after the purchases were made. Both the payments, anterior and subsequent to the actual deliveries of fertilizers, were thus intimately connected with the deliveries of fertilizers. There were no independent transactions creating independent obligations. Merely because on one or two occasions the balance shifted from one side to the other and remained undischarged for a few days it cannot be said that the account was a mutual, open and current account. The learned Judge while dealing with that case has also specifically mentioned that the decision on this point in L. Kesava Chettiar Vs. M.M. Ramanatha Mudaliar on which reliance was placed by Mr. J.K. Misra for the Appellants, runs directly contrary to what the Supreme Court has held in The Hindustan Forest Company Vs. Lal Chand and Others. The learned Judge in paragraph 22 of the judgment has further observed: Merely because on one or two occasions the balance had shifted in favour of the Defendant and remained undischarged for a few days, could it be said that the account was a mutual, open and current account, or that such obligation was an independent obligation? In short, the entire case of the Plaintiff, in the case before me, was that the Defendant had paid either a few days prior to the supplies of fertilizers or two days after the supplies were made. In short, the entire case of the Plaintiff, in the case before me, was that the Defendant had paid either a few days prior to the supplies of fertilizers or two days after the supplies were made. This is nothing but a running account and cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be said to be a mutual, open and current account. A Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in the decision in Chaubey Sushil Chandra Vs. Raj Bahadur has observed on this question as follows: 28 xx xx xx On an analysis of the various authorities cited on either side, the legal position is quite clear. An open account is one which Is continuous or is uninterrupted or is unclosed by settlement or otherwise, consisting of a series of transactions. Mutual accounts are such as consist in reciprocity of dealings between the parties, and do not embrace those having items on one side only, though made up of debits and credits. 29. To constitute a mutual account, there must be transactions on each side creating independent obligations on the other and not merely transactions which create obligation on the one side, those on the other being merely complete or partial discharges of such obligations. For an account properly to be called mutual account, there must be mutual dealings in the sense that both parties give common mutual liabilities to each other. The test of mutuality in our opinion is that the dealings between the parties should be such that the balance is sometimes in favour of the other. An account which consists of entries of payments made by one party in deduction to a debt to another and payments made by the latter on behalf of the former would not be a mutual account. In view of the Supreme Court decision and the decisions of the other High Courts mentioned above and in view of the facts of this case I am firmly of the view that the accounts showing supply of articles and the payment of the price thereof by the Defendants to the Plaintiffs on different dates do not constitute mutual open and current accounts, so as to bring this case under Article 1 of the Limitation Act. The case on the facts stated above is without doubt a case under Article 14 of the Limitation Act and so the Plaintiffs' claim for the balance price of the articles supplied by them to the Defendants till 22-9-1969 is clearly barred by limitation. 12. On the Plaintiffs' case that they supplied articles worth Rs. 3398.43 to the Defendants between 13-10-1969 and 14-8-1970 and during that period the Defendants paid a sum of Rs. 3560/- in different instalments, the Plaintiffs are not entitled to recover any amount from the Defendants for the articles supplied by them to the Defendants for the said period. The Court below has also found that the Plaintiffs are not entitled to get any amount from the Defendants for the supply of articles made by them to the Defendants in 1969-70. 13. On the above findings and analysis the Plaintiffs' suit has been rightly dismissed by the Courts below. 14. The finding of the, Court below that the Khata accounts produced by the Plaintiffs are genuine has been challenged by the Defendant-Respondents in this appeal. In view of my above conclusions it is not necessary for me to examine the correctness of the finding regarding the genuineness of the Khata accounts. The Respondents objection to that effect is disposed of accordingly. In the result the second appeal is dismissed, but in the circumstances without costs of this Court. Final Result : Dismissed