JUDGMENT 1. - The present first appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree of learned Additional District Judge, Bhilwara dated 28.11.1980 passing the decree for Rs. 8,119/- with proportionate cost. The learned Additional District Judge has also allowed pendente lite and future interest at the rate of 6% per annum. 2. The suit was filed by plaintiff-respondent No. 1 against defendant-appellant and defendant-respondent No. 2 on the ground, inter alia that the plaintiff-respondent N o.1 was carrying on business of grocery and during the course of his business, he has supplied articles of food and cloths etc. It is alleged in the plaint by plaintiff-respondent No. 1 that as the defendant-appellant and defendant-respondent No. 2 had not made any payment, therefore, the suit for recovery of Rs. 13,499.41 with interest at the rate of Re. 1 /- per month was filed. 3. After service of summons, the defendants filed their written statements separately denying the amount claimed by plaintiff-respondent No. 1. 4. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, necessary issues were framed focusing the attention of the parties to adduce their evidence in support of their respective claim. In support of his claim, plaintiff-respondent No. 1 examined Madan Lal as PW 1, Mool Chand as PW 2 and Banshi Lal as PW 3. In rebuttal, the defendants examined Shiv Charan Dass as DW 1 and Chandra Sen as DW 2. The plaintiff-respondent No. 1 in support of his claim filed various entries in Book of Accounts regularly maintained by him during the course of his business. 5. Learned trial Court, after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, after analytical discussion of oral and documentary evidence on record, decreed the suit for Rs. 8,119 /- with proportionate cost including the pendente lite and future interest at the rate of 6% per annum as mentioned in the preceding paragraph of this judgment. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the evidence adduced by the parties. 7. The following points for determination are involved in the present appeal : (a) WHETHER the present suit was barred by limitation? (b) WHETHER plaintiff-respondent No. 1 supplied goods to defendant No. 1 and defendant No. 2 stood as a guarantor, therefore, he is entitled to recover Rs. 8,119/- price of articles of goods supplied to them with pendente lite and future interest? 8. (b) WHETHER plaintiff-respondent No. 1 supplied goods to defendant No. 1 and defendant No. 2 stood as a guarantor, therefore, he is entitled to recover Rs. 8,119/- price of articles of goods supplied to them with pendente lite and future interest? 8. It is strenuously urged by the learned counsel for the appellant that the present suit was filed beyond limitation. In this regard, it is pertinent to note that entires in the book of accounts disclose that in the close of the year 31.5.1970 i.e. Samvat 2087 the last item is entered in the book of accounts whereas suit was filed on 31.5.1973. It is to be imbibed, that in such suits where the balance due on mutual, open and current account where there have been reciprocal demand by the parties, the period of limitation will run from last item either admitted or proved in the account book. In the present case, close of the year in which last item is proved to be entered is Samvat 2087 i.e. 31.5.1970. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the suit was filed within limitation and an argument contrary to it is devoid of merit. 9. Second point for determination is as to whether plaintiff-respondent No. 1 supplied goods to defendant No. 1 and defendant No. 2, stood as a guarantor and as such, he is entitled to recover Rs. 8,119/- price of articles of food and cloths etc. supplied to them together with pendente lite and future interest as held by the learned trial Court. 10. A close scrutiny of the judgment given by the learned trial Court go a long way to prove that the learned trial Court, after analytical discussion of oral and documentary evidence on record arrived at a finding that the defendant-appellant as well as defendant-respondent No. 2 both are liable to pay Rs. 8,119/- for the goods supplied to them by the plaintiff. 11. As regard supply of goods for which decree has been passed by the learned trial Court, I am satisfied that the learned trial Court has decreed the suit after analytical discussion of oral and documentary evidence available on record. The learned trial Court committed no error in appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on record. 11. As regard supply of goods for which decree has been passed by the learned trial Court, I am satisfied that the learned trial Court has decreed the suit after analytical discussion of oral and documentary evidence available on record. The learned trial Court committed no error in appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on record. I am in full agreement with the findings recorded by the learned trial Court on all issues, which do not require any interference in the present appeal. 12. Plaintiff-respondent No. 1 has also filed cross-objection, which is found to be without substance and it is hereby rejected. The judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court is eminently just and proper and does not require interference in appeal.As a result of the aforesaid discussion, the present first appeal lacks merit and it is hereby dismissed. The judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court is hereby affirmed cost is made easyAppeal allowed. *******