A. P. RAVANI, J. ( 1 ) WOULD the part payment without anything more made towards the dues for the goods sold and delivered extend the period of limitation from the date of making such part payment? This short question arises in this revision application. ( 2 ) THE opponent plaintiff filed a suit being Regular Civil Suit No 404 of 1974 in the court of Civil Judge (SD) Vadodara for the recovery of Rs. 2 457. 72 from the defendant. The plaintiff is a carting contractor and is doing business of commission agent. It was the case of the plaintiff that the defendant had purchased certain building materials from the plaintiff to the tune of Rs. 4 307 72 and towards this amount he paid Rs. 2 500 an amount of Rs. 1 807. 72 remained due towards the principal amount. According to the plaintiff an amount of Rs. 650/ as and by way of interest calculated at the rate of 12 per cent per annum also fell due. ( 3 ) THE plaintiff contended that even after the notice of demand was served upon the defendant he did not pay the dues and hence the suit was filed for the recovery of the amount due i. e. Rs. 2 457 72 The defendant appeared in the suit and resisted the same on facts as well as on law points. He inter alia contended that the suit filed by the plaintiff was beyond the period of limitation under the provisions of the Limitation Act. The trial court negatived the contention of the defendant on this score on the ground that the account was a running account and the period of limitation will start to run from the date of payment of the last amount and decreed the suit of the plaintiff in its entirety. The defendant preferred an appeal being Regular Civil Appeal No. 405 of 1980 in the court of District Judge Vadodara. The defendant preferred an appeal being Regular Civil Appeal No. 405 of 1980 in the court of District Judge Vadodara. The learned 2 Extra Assistant Judge Vadodara who heard the appeal partially allowed the same inasmuch as he held that the plaintiff was entitled to get 6 per cent interest per annum and not 12 per cent interest on the amount due and he confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the trial court to the aforesaid extent by his judgment and order dated 4/12/1981 The aforesaid judgment and decree of the courts below is challenged in the revision application by the original defendant. ( 4 ) FROM the accounts produced during the course of evidence and a copy of which has been shown to me by the counsel for the petitioner it clearly transpires that the account of the defendant started from 22/12/1970 and the last item sold to the defendant was on 15/04/1977. ( 5 ) THE defendant made payments towards the aforesaid dues on the following dates:date of Payment amount5-2-1971 rs. 1,000. 0012-2-1971 rs. 1,000. 0010-4-1971 rs. 500. 00total Rs. 2,500. 00now it is clear that the present suit was for the recovery of the price of goods sold and delivered and it was not the case of the plaintiff that the parties agreed for a fixed period of credit. Hence the provisions of Article 14 of Schedule to the Limitation Act will be applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. The said provisions read as follows: Article Description of the suit Period of Time from which No. Limitation period begins to run 14 For the price of goods sold Three The date of the years and delivered where no fixed delivery of the period of credit is agreed upon goods. in the instant case the suit has been filed on 2/04/1974 Therefore the items of goods sold and delivered within three years prior to the date of filing of the suit i. e. 2/04/1974 would be within the period of limitation. Now as per the accounts produced and relied upon by the plaintiff the only item which falls within the period of limitation is that of 15/04/1971 on which date the goods worth Rs. 112. 50 had been sold and delivered to the defendant. Now as per the accounts produced and relied upon by the plaintiff the only item which falls within the period of limitation is that of 15/04/1971 on which date the goods worth Rs. 112. 50 had been sold and delivered to the defendant. ( 6 ) THE trial court proceeded on the footing that the account of the defendant was a running account and therefore from the date of last payment of Rs. 500. 00 i. e. of 10/04/1971 the time would commence to run. The trial court simply observed that the suit was for the goods supplied on credit and the account was a running account of the defendant with the plaintiff. On this basis only and without giving any other reason the trial court held that the suit was within the period of limitation and decreed the suit of the plaintiff. The defendant preferred an appeal in the court of District Judge Vadodara which was heard by the 2nd Extra Assistant Judge Vadodara. During the course of the judgment the learned 2nd Extra Assistant Judge referred to various decisions including the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of HINDUSTAN FOREST COMPANY V. LAL CHAND AND OTHERS REPORTED IN A. I. R. 1959 S. C. 1349. Still however he confirmed the decree passed by the trial court on the footing that as per the pleadings of the plaintiff the suit was within the period of limitation. A copy of the plaint has been shown to me by the counsel for the petitioner. Nowhere in the plaint it is pleaded that there was acknowledgment of the dues within the prescribed period of limitation. There is no issue as to whether there was valid subsisting and binding acknowledgment of the dues. Therefore the finding given by the lower appellate court that on the basis of the pleadings of the plaintiff the suit was within the period of limitation is not correct and the same cannot be sustained. ( 7 ) NOW the question remains to be answered is can the transactions between the parties be said to be of mutual open and current account where there have been reciprocal demands between the parties? If that be so the provisions of Article I of the Schedule to the Limitation Act would apply. ( 7 ) NOW the question remains to be answered is can the transactions between the parties be said to be of mutual open and current account where there have been reciprocal demands between the parties? If that be so the provisions of Article I of the Schedule to the Limitation Act would apply. The Article reads as follows: - Description of suit Period of Time from which period Limitation begins to run - 1 For the balance due on a mutual Three The close of the year in open and current account where years which the last item admitted there have been reciprocal or proved is entered in the demands between the parties account; such year to be computed as in the account. -In this connection it may be stated that the lower appellate court did refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in Hindustan Forest Company case. (supra) but failed to apply the principles laid down therein. The Supreme Court dealt with the provisions of Article 85 of the Limitation Act of 1908. In the new Limitation Act of 1963 the same provision has been verbatim made in Article 1 which has been reproduced herein above. The Supreme Court in the aforesaid case stated that the requirement of reciprocal demands involves transactions on each side creating independent obligations on the other and not merely transactions which create obligations on one side those on the other being merely complete or partial discharges of such obligations. In the instant case there is no reciprocity whatsoever which created independent obligations on either side. The provisions of Article 1 and particularly the words mutual open and current account mean that the transactions must be both on the debit and credit sides creting independent obligations. If there is an entry shown on one side which is set off by the payment of debt it cannot be said to be mutual open and current account. There must be existence of reciprocity of demands. The essence of mutual open and current account is that there must be independent dealings between the parties which can be duly set off between each other. In the instant case the defendant made payment after the goods were delivered and the payments made were towards the price due. These part-payments were in discharge of obligations created on the buyer on account of the deliveries made to him. In the instant case the defendant made payment after the goods were delivered and the payments made were towards the price due. These part-payments were in discharge of obligations created on the buyer on account of the deliveries made to him. His obligation was to pay the price of the goods delivered. These part-payments did not create any obligation on the seller in favour of the buyer. Therefore it is clear that the provisions of Article 1 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act cannot be made applicable to the facts End circumstances of this case. ( 8 ) IN view of the aforesaid position it is obvious that the courts below have committed an error of law in holding that the suit of the plaintiff was within the prescribed period of limitation. As discussed hereinabove only the last item of Rs. 112. 50 dated 15/04/1971 would be within the prescribed period of limitation since the suit was filed on 2/04/1974 In view of the aforesaid discussion it is clear that there is nothing in the Law of Limitation which provides that mere part-payment of certain amount without anything more indicating acknowledgment of the debts in writing would extend the period of limitation from the date of making of such part-payment. ( 9 ) IN the result the judgment and decree passed by the courts below will have to be modified as follows: The revision application is partially allowed. The judgment and decree passed by the court of Civil Judge (SD) Vadodara in Regular Civil Suit No. 404 of 1974 and partially confirmed by the court of 2nd Extra Assistant Judge Vadodara in Regular Civil Appeal No. 405 of 1980 are reversed and set aside and the suit of the plaintiff to the extent of Rs. 112. 50 only is allowed. The plaintiff do recover the sum of Rs. 112. 50 with 12 per cent interest from 15/04/1971 till the date of filing of the suit and thereafter with 6 per cent interest till its realisation with proportionate costs. The rest of the claim of the plaintiff is ordered to be dismissed. Rule is made absolute to the extent indicated hereinabove. Revision allowed. be in their interest to give hearing to the persons likely to be affected so that the possibility of a new round of litigation is avoided. The rest of the claim of the plaintiff is ordered to be dismissed. Rule is made absolute to the extent indicated hereinabove. Revision allowed. be in their interest to give hearing to the persons likely to be affected so that the possibility of a new round of litigation is avoided. We reiterate that as far as the petitioners are concerned they are amenable to any of the three modes which the O. N. G. C. may choose to adopt. ( 10 ) WE accordingly set aside the prices demanded by the O. N. G. C. from these petitioners in this group of petitions leaving it open to the O. N. G. C. to deal with the question of price fixation in any one of the three modes suggested by us. The petitions are accordingly partly allowed. Rule is accordingly made absolute in all these petitions with costs. ( 11 ) THE civil Applications In view of the final decision do not survive and stand disposed of and till the new price fixation is had the price charged last from these petitioners under the respective contracts with them shall continue to operate between the parties subject to adjustments in future after prices are fixed as stated above. ( 12 ) BEFORE we part with these matters we would put on record our deep appreciation of the able assistance rendered to us by the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties in this group of Petitions. ( 13 ) AT this stage the learned Advocate General for the O. N. G. C. has orally applied for leave under Article 133 of the Constitution of India. Though we have rejected the contentions put forward on behalf of the O. N. G. C. and though we have rested our judgment on the principles laid down by the Supreme Court We would still say that the application of those principles in the matter of price fixation has come up before this court and possibly other High Courts also for the first time. In this sense we are inclined to say that there does arise a substantial question of general importance in this group of petitions and it is required to be decided by the Supreme Court in order to put a quietus to the whole controversy once for all. The leave is therefore granted as prayed for. In this sense we are inclined to say that there does arise a substantial question of general importance in this group of petitions and it is required to be decided by the Supreme Court in order to put a quietus to the whole controversy once for all. The leave is therefore granted as prayed for. ( 14 ) IN order to enable the O. N. G. C. to have a proper interim relief or any other relief from the Supreme Court we direct that the interim relief operative so far shall continue to operate for the period of two months from today on assurance by the learned Advocate General for the O. N. G. C. that if the Supreme Court by interim order makes any other provision or ultimately the petitioners grievance is upheld by the Supreme Court whatever overpayments can be found out will be adjusted towards the future claim from the respective petitioners. 42 Certified copies if applied for urgently shall be made available to both the sides on priority basis. .