JUDGMENT R.L. Khurana, J.—The plaintiff is a private limited company duly incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at 2275, Adat Bazar, Ahmednagar. It has its branches throughout the country including the one at Parwanoo in District Solan. It deals in manufacture and sale of various electronic products, such as, colour/black and white televisions, washing machines, refrigerators, audios, V.C. Rs., V.C. Ps. etc. 2. Defendant No.1 is a sole preprietorship firm of defendant No. 2 and is carrying on the business of sale and purchase of electronic products. The plaintiff in the year 1991 on having been approached by the defendants supplied various electronic products to them on credit by opening an account in their names in its books of account. In such account all the purchases made by the defendants from time to time and all payments received from them from time to time were being entered. As on 8.2.1994 after adjusting the amount of Rs. 70,000/- received from the defendants, a sum of Rs. 4,17,215/- was due from the defendants which they failed to pay. Claiming interest on such amount at the rate of 18% per annum with effect from 9.2.1994 till the filing of the suit, the plaintiff has filed the present suit for the recovery of Rs. 6,42,511/-, that is, Rs. 4,17,215/- as principal amount due and Rs. 2,25,296/- as interest thereon. 3. The defendants while resisting the suit admitted that they having being making purchases from the plaintiff and that whatever amount was due stands paid. The case put forth by the defendants is that in fact excess payment has been made by them to the plaintiff. They pleaded that the plaintiff was guilty of suppression of material facts and that the suit was not within time. 4. Following issues were framed on the basis of the pleadings of the parties on 30.3.1998:— 1. Whether the plaintiff is guilty of suppression of material facts, if so to what effect? OPD 2. Whether the suit is barred by limitation? OPD 3. Whether the defendants have made over payments as alleged? OPD 4. To what amount if any is the plaintiff entitled to recover from the defendants? OPP 5. Relief. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case. My findings on the above issues are as under:— Issue No.1. 6. Whether the defendants have made over payments as alleged? OPD 4. To what amount if any is the plaintiff entitled to recover from the defendants? OPP 5. Relief. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case. My findings on the above issues are as under:— Issue No.1. 6. During the course of hearing the present issue was not pressed by the learned counsel for the defendants. The same is as such decided against the defendants. Issue No. 2. 7. According to the plaintiff, the present suit being for the recovery of balance amount due on a mutual, open and current account is governed by Article 1 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (for short : the Act) and the same having been filed within three years of the close of the year in which the last transaction took place, is within time. Article 1 of the Act, reads:— "1. For the balance due on Three a mutual, open and years current account, where there have been reciprocal demands between the parties. The close of the year in which the last item admitted or proved is entered in the account; such year to be computed as in the account." Following two questions arise for determination in the present case:— (i) Whether there was a mutual, open and current account between the parties; and (ii) If the above question is answered in the negative, whether the suit is within time. 8. Mutual, open and current account means a course of dealing where each party furnishes credit to the other on the reliance that on settlement the accounts will be allowed, so that one will reduce the balance due on the other. To be mutual, there must be transactions on each side creating independent obligations on the other and not merely transactions which create obligations on the one side, those on the other being merely complete or partial discharges of such obligations. 9. In Hindustan Forest Company v. Lal Chand and others (AIR 1959 SC 1349), the parties entered into an agreement for the supply of grains by the sellers to the buyers at the rates and times specified. The agreement stated that on the day it had been made the buyer had paid to the sellers Rs. 3,000/- and had agreed to pay a further sum of Rs. The agreement stated that on the day it had been made the buyer had paid to the sellers Rs. 3,000/- and had agreed to pay a further sum of Rs. 10,000/- within ten or twelve days as advance and the balance due for the price of goods delivered after the expiry of every months. The said sum of Rs. 10,000/- was later paid by the buyers to the sellers. Various quantities of goods were thereafter delivered by the sellers to the buyers and though such deliveries had not been made strictly at the times specified in the contract, the same had been accepted by the buyers. The buyers in their turn had made various payments towards the price of goods delivered but not month by month and had not further paid it in full. The last delivery of goods was made on 23.6.1947 and the suit for recovery of the balance amount was filed on 10.10.1950. 10. It was held that there was no reciprocity of dealings. There were no independent obligations. Insofar as the payments had been made after the goods had been delivered, they had been made towards the price due and were in discharge of the obligation created in the buyers by the deliveries made to them to pay the price of the goods delivered and did not create any obligation on the sellers in favour of the buyers. The sum of Rs. 13,000/- paid as and by way of advance payment of price of goods to be delivered was paid in discharge of obligations to arise under the contract. It was paid under the terms of the contract which was to buy the goods and pay for them. It did not itself create any obligation on the sellers in favour of the buyers. It was not intended to be and did not amount to an independent transaction, detached from the rest of the contract. The sellers were under an obligation to deliver the goods, but such obligation arose from the contract and not from the payment of the advance alone. If the sellers had failed to deliver the goods, they would have been liable to refund the monies advanced on account of price of goods and might also have been liable in damages, but such liability would then have arisen from the contract and not from the fact of the advances having been made. If the sellers had failed to deliver the goods, they would have been liable to refund the monies advanced on account of price of goods and might also have been liable in damages, but such liability would then have arisen from the contract and not from the fact of the advances having been made. Apart from such failure, the buyers could not recover the monies paid in advance. 11. A Division Bench of this Court in M/s. Roshan Lal Kuthiala and another v. Raja Rana Yogendra Chandra and others (AIR 1996 HP 14) has held that an account is mutual, open and current when it is an account between two parties, having mutual dealings which is running or current, that is, not closed, and open. Where one person supplies to other person one kind of goods or work and obtains from him another kind, debiting him with cost of the former and crediting him with cost of the latter, the account is mutual. There must be a mutual credit founded on a subsisting debt on the other side or an express or an implied agreement for a set off of mutual debts. Where there is obligation only on one side and at no time was there over payment, it cannot be said that there is mutual, open and current account. In order that the account liability is mutual, there must be transactions on each side, creating independent obligations on the other and not merely complete or partial discharges of such obligations. 12. The Madras High Court in Raju and others v. L. Kumaramuthu (AIR 1975 Madras 1) has held that mere striking of the balance after the parties have had a continuous dealing as between themselves cannot, prima facie, make that account a mutual, open and current account. The account may be current and equally it may be open, but unless it is mutual it ceases to be a mutual, open and current account. Unless it is established that during the dealings one party has become a creditor to the other and at another time the other party who is the creditor, has become a debtor to the other which brings out the essence of mutuality in the accounts, it ceases to be a mutual, open and current account. 13. Unless it is established that during the dealings one party has become a creditor to the other and at another time the other party who is the creditor, has become a debtor to the other which brings out the essence of mutuality in the accounts, it ceases to be a mutual, open and current account. 13. In the present case, only the plaintiff has been making deliveries of goods to the defendants and price thereof was being paid by the defendants from time to time either in full or partial discharge of the obligations. There has been no independent obligation on the plaintiff in favour of the defendants. In the accounts being maintained by the plaintiff, the price of goods supplied were being debited and the monies received from time to time from the defendants towards the price of goods supplied, were being credited. The transactions between the parties were thus pure and simple that of sale of goods. There has been no mutuality of obligations. Therefore, it cannot be said that there has been a mutual, open and current account between the parties. 14. It is also significant to note that the plaintiff itself has no where pleaded in the plaint that there has been a mutual, open and current account between the parties. The pleadings set up in paragraphs 3 and 4 of the plaint do not make out a case of mutual, open and current account. Article 1 of the Act, as such has no application in the present case. Ex. PW 1/B is the copy of the statement of account. The last four entries in this statement of account are as under:— Date Particulars Debit Credit Balance 1.12.1993 To balance transferee from CE II Rs. 2,96, 705/- - Rs. 4,31,445/- 7.2.1994 To invoice 174 Rs. 9,800/- 7.2.1994 To invoice 173 Rs. 45,900/-. 8.2.1994 By demand draft 570647 — Rs. 70,000/- Rs. 4,17,215/- 15. None of the above entries has either been admitted by the defendants or proved by the plaintiff. Though copies of the invoices dated 7.2.1994 Ex. PW 1/G and Ex. PW 1/H alongwith goods receipt Ex. PW 1/M have been placed on the record, there is no evidence to show that the goods detailed therein were actually delivered to and received by the defendants. Though copies of the invoices dated 7.2.1994 Ex. PW 1/G and Ex. PW 1/H alongwith goods receipt Ex. PW 1/M have been placed on the record, there is no evidence to show that the goods detailed therein were actually delivered to and received by the defendants. The primary evidence with regard to delivery of goods to and receipt thereof by the defendants is lacking in the present case. 16. Similarly, though a sum of Rs. 70,000/- is shown to have been received from the defendants by way of a bank draft on 8.2.1994, which payment has been denied by the defendants, no evidence has been led by the plaintiff to prove such payment by the defendants. The amount is shown to have been received by way of a bank draft No. 570647. Therefore, the best evidence to prove such payment was in the form of bank record. Such record would have shown as to who had obtained the said bank draft, when and from where. The onus of proving the transaction of receipt of the amount of Rs. 70,000/- on 8.2.1994 was heavily on the plaintiff, which it has failed to discharge. 17. The defendant No. 2 while appearing as DW 1 has categorically stated that there has been no transaction between the parties after 6.12.1993. Nothing to the contrary has been brought on the record. 18. Even if it be assumed that a sum of Rs. 70,000/- was paid by the defendants to the plaintiff on 8.2.1994 as alleged by the plaintiff, even then the suit of the plaintiff would not be within the time. Since the limitation would not stand extended under Section 19 of the Act. It has been held in The Kangra District Whole Sale Co-operative Supplies and Marketing Society Limited v. M/s. Buta Mal Sohan Lal (1996 (2) Sim. L.C.1) that in order to claim the benefit of extension of period of limitation under Section 19 of the Act, the onus is on the plaintiff to prove that payment has been made within the prescribed period of limitation and that such payment has been acknowledged by some form of writing either in the handwriting of payer himself or signed by him. 19. In the present case, even if the payment of Rs. 19. In the present case, even if the payment of Rs. 70,000/ - is presumed to have been made by the defendants within the period of limitation, the second requirement is lacking with regard to the written acknowledgement. Therefore, in the absence of written acknowledgement as required under Section 19 of die Act, the mere entry showing the payment of Rs, 70,000/- in the books of accounts of the plaintiff would not extend the period of limitation. Therefore, the suit of the plaintiff cannot be held to be within time. The issue is decided in favour of the defendants. Issue No. 3. 20. There is no evidence in support of the issue. The same is accordingly decided against the defendants. Issue No. 4. 21. In view of the findings recorded under issue No.2 above, the plaintiff is not entitled to any amount from the defendants. The issue is decided against the plaintiff. RELIEF 22. As a result, the present suit fails and the same is accordingly dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. Petition dismissed. -