Judgment : D. Murugesan, J. 1. This Original Side Appeal has been filed as against the judgment and decree passed by this Court dated 25.4.1994 in C.S.No. 148 of 1985. 2. The parties in this appeal are referred to as they are arrayed in the suit. The appellant is the plaintiff and the respondent is the defendant. The plaintiff filed the said suit for a judgment and decree, directing the defendant to pay to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.49,30,270.94 together with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of the plaint till the date of realization. Following are the brief facts, which led the plaintiff in filing the suit. 3. The plaintiff is a Banking Company carrying on business in banking at various places including a branch at No.135, Thambu Chettty Street, Madras. The defendant company carrying on business as agents and representatives of various Shipping lines all over India. The defendant had a current account with the plaintiff bank for the purpose of its business and used to operate the said current account to carry on its business in the course of which it used to receive funds from its customers abroad and also remit the amounts to such customers abroad. 4. According to the plaintiff, on 7.11.1977, the defendant requested the plaintiff’s Foreign Department at Central Office to transfer by cable an amount equivalent to Rs.14,22,070.01 to Messrs Christian Haaland 85001, Haugesund, Norway in Norsegian Kroners to the credit of their account with Bergan Private Bank, Baugesund, Norway on account of surplus freight collections of M.V. Concordia Fjord sailed from Cochin on 4.5.1977. The defendant also requested the plaintiff to debit the said amount along with the charges for such remittances to the current account maintained by the defendant in the plaintiff’s George Town Branch. 5. Pursuant to the said request, the plaintiff’s Foreign Department at Central Office remitted the said amount to Norway to the debit of the plaintiff’s Bank. However, due to oversight and inadvertence, the said amount of Rs.14,22,070.01 was omitted to be debited to the current account of the defendant on 7.11.1977 or on subsequent dates. On 9.12.1983, the plaintiff discovered the said omission and the Managing Director of the defendant company was asked to appraise such omission with a further request to reimburse the said amount to the plaintiff together with interest. On 9.12.1983, the plaintiff discovered the said omission and the Managing Director of the defendant company was asked to appraise such omission with a further request to reimburse the said amount to the plaintiff together with interest. Since there was no response from the defendant, the plaintiff sent a letter dated 19.12.1983 to the defendant with a request for reimbursement. In reply dated 26.12.1983, the defendant evasively stated that on a reconciliation of books available with the defendant, there was no differencein the plaintiff’s account and that the mistake must be at the plaintiff’s end. In view of the above stand, the plaintiff was compelled to issue a lawyer’s notice dated 31.10.1984, calling upon the defendant to make good the amount together with the interest. The defendant in their reply dated 24.4.1984 through their lawyer denied the liability. Hence, the plaintiff filed the said suit for a total sum of Rs.49,30,270.94 together with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of plaint till the date of realization. 6. Thesuit was resisted by filing a written statement by the defendant, contending interalia that though the defendant requested the plaintiff to remit the said sum to Messrs Christian Haaland 85001, Haugesund, Norway in Norsegian Kroners on 7.11.1977, they had no knowledge whether in fact the remittance was made as no intimation was ever given by the plaintiff as to such remittance. The defendant disputed the claim of the plaintiff that it is the omission of the plaintiff to debit the said sum on 7.11.1977 or on any other subsequent dates, due to oversight or inadvertence or due to any other reasons. The defendant also resisted the suit on the ground of limitation. The transaction is said to have taken place on 7.11.1977 and the suit was filed only during March 1985. Hence, the defendant prayed for dismissal of the suit. 7. Considering the pleadings and the submissions, learned single judge framed the following issues : i. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the suit claim of Rs.49,30,270.94 ? ii. Whether the suit is barred by limitation ? 8. The plaintiff examined six witnesses and marked 35 documents as exhibits. Neither oral nor documentary evidence was let in on behalf of the defendant. 9. ii. Whether the suit is barred by limitation ? 8. The plaintiff examined six witnesses and marked 35 documents as exhibits. Neither oral nor documentary evidence was let in on behalf of the defendant. 9. Though the learned single judge found that the suit is barred by limitation, he also proceeded to discuss the evidence and rendered a finding that the plaintiff has not established the liability of the defendant to reimburse the amount claimed in the plaint. 10. We have heard the submissions of Mr. M. Chandrasekar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. R. Shankaranarayanan, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 11. In view of the submission, the two issues framed by the learned single judge also arise for our consideration. Before adverting to the appeal on its merits, we propose to deal firstly as to the issue relating to limitation. 12. It is not in dispute that the defendant requested the plaintiff’s Foreign Department at Central Office to transfer by cable an amount equivalent to Rs.14,22,070.01 to Messrs Christian Haaland 85001, Haugesund, Norway in Norsegian Kroners to the credit of their account with Bergan Private Bank, Baugesund, Norway. The defendant also requested the plaintiff to debit the said amount along with the charges for such remittances to the current account maintained by the defendant in the plaintiff’s George Town Branch. It is the case of the plaintiff that the Foreign Department of the plaintiff’s bank at Central Office remitted the said amount at Norway to the debit of the plaintiff’s bank. It is the further case of the plaintiff that due to oversight and inadvertence, the said amount was omitted to be debited to the current account of the defendant either on 7.11.1977 or on subsequent dates. It is also not in dispute that such remittances by the Foreign Department of the plaintiff’s central office was not communicated to the defendant. It is the case of the plaintiff that only on 9.12.1983, nearly after a period of five years, the said error and omission was discovered and for the first time, the plaintiff seemed to have met the Managing Director of the defendant company and requested him to take steps to reimburse the said amount to the plaintiff together with interest. There were some exchange of notices between the plaintiff and the defendant and finally the suit came to be filed in March 1985. There were some exchange of notices between the plaintiff and the defendant and finally the suit came to be filed in March 1985. A suit for recovery must be laid within a period of three years from the date the amount is due and payable and the said date shall be the date for the cause of action to file the suit. Except by saying that the remittance made on 7.11.1977 was not debited to the current account of the defendant on 7.11.1977 or on any subsequent dates or even on the date of filing of the suit, no explanation whatsoever is offered by the plaintiff to explain the inordinate delay. Except by pleading that it was a bona fide mistake and hence, Section 17(c) of the Limitation Act would come into rescue. 13. Section 17 of the Limitation Act relates to effect of fraud or mistake vis-?is initiation of the suit beyond the period of limitation. Section 17 (c ) saves the period of limitation in a case where the suit or application is filed for relief from the consequences of a mistake. The period of limitation shall not begin to run until the plaintiff or applicant has discovered the fraud or the mistake with reasonable diligence. 14. Facts discussed above would indicate that the plaintiff’s bank is one of the nationalized banks having its very wide establishment. In order to prove their oversight or inadvertence in not debiting the amount to the account of the defendant, which was remitted at their request, the plaintiff must show and establish reasonable diligence. To find out whether there was reasonable diligence. To find out whether there was reasonable diligence on the part of the defendant, it must be noted that the plaintiff though claimed the remittance on 7.11.1977, they did not make corresponding debit entries in the defendant account either on 7.11.1977 or on any subsequent dates. Event when the said omission was said to have been discovered on 9.12.1983, there was no corresponding debit entry appears to have been made and admittedly, even on that date, the defendant had the current account. Secondly, on the date when the request of the defendant was made for remittance of Rs.14,22,070.01, admittedly, the defendant had only a sum of Rs.10,00,000 in their account. Secondly, on the date when the request of the defendant was made for remittance of Rs.14,22,070.01, admittedly, the defendant had only a sum of Rs.10,00,000 in their account. The officers of the plaintiff’s bank were not diligent even to ascertain the balance available to the credit before the remittance is made. Thirdly, such remittance has not been intimated to the defendant. Viewed on the above facts, in our considered view, the plaintiff’s bank was not diligent to sustain the claim of benefit under section 17 (c ) of the Limitation Act to contend that there was a mistake, which was discovered with due diligence only on 9.12.1983. Hence, we find that the plaintiff is not entitled to the benefits under Section 17(c ) of the Limitation Act for the purpose of saving the limitation for filing the suit. Hence, on this ground th e suit is liable to be dismissed as barred by limitation. 15. Coming to the merits of the case, though in view of our finding that the suit is barred by limitation and as such, the suit is liable to be dismissed, in view of the fact that the learned single judge had also proceeded to discuss the evidence on merits and had also rendered a finding on it, we also propose to discuss the evidence. 16. In view of the rival claims, it must be first ascertain as to whether the plaintiff has established the remittance of the amount in question and whether the said fact was intimated to the defendant to make them liable for reimbursement. 17. To sustain the plea of knowledge of the defendant as to such remittance by the plaintiff, at the out set it must be noted that the plaint was verified and filed by one Sundaravadivelu, Zonal Manager of the plaintiff’s Bank and was not examined. P.W.1 is an officer of the Foreign Department of the plaintiff’s bank during the year 1977. Ex. P.3 is the confirmation Cable sent by P.W.1 to Bergen Bank, Norway. Ex.P.4 is the confirmation cable given by P.W.1 to the National Westmister Bank, London to contend that the Foreign Department of the plaintiff’s bank had sent cables to Bergen Bank to pay the beneficiary and to National Westminster Bank to reimburse the money to the Bergen bank. He does not speak about the confirmation of the debit made in the account of the defendant. He does not speak about the confirmation of the debit made in the account of the defendant. His evidence also discloses that when the request was made to the bank for remittance of money to a Foreign number, an undertaking should be obtained to the effect that sufficient balance should be kept in the account to effect their remittance and the bank should verify the exchange currency of the foreign and as to whether sufficient balance is also maintained in the account. In fact, he was not aware of the fact as to whether the procedure is followed. From the evidence of P.W.1, we do not find that the defendant is liable to reimburse that amount said to have been remitted is liable plaintiff’s bank in the defendant’s account, as there was no intimation as to the confirmation of the remittance to the defendant to sustain the pl ea of reimbursement. 18. P.W.2 is also an employee of the plaintiff’s bank. He pleaded ignorance of the request of the defendant as alleged in the letter dated 7.11.1977. He has also stated that he has not debited the amount to the account. His evidence as to the credit balance of Rs.10,99,740.71 which was maintained by the defendant on 7.11.1977 is relevant as to the specific stand of P.W.1 that the defendant ought to have maintained the sufficient balance amount in their account to effect the remittance. Admittedly, the requ est of the defendant for remittance was in a sum of Rs.14,22,070.01, contrary to the admitted balance in the current account is a sum of Rs.10,99,740.71. The evidence of P.W.2 also does not support the case of the plaintiff to prove that the defendant was liable to reimburse the amount said to have been remitted by the plaintiff. P.W.3 is a record officer. His evidence discloses that on verification he did not find any debit entry in the account of the defendant. P.W.4 is the Deputy Chief Officer in the re-conciliation Department of the plaintiff bank. He has spoken that even on 6.9.1979, there as no debit entry made in the defendant’s account. P.W.3 is a record officer. His evidence discloses that on verification he did not find any debit entry in the account of the defendant. P.W.4 is the Deputy Chief Officer in the re-conciliation Department of the plaintiff bank. He has spoken that even on 6.9.1979, there as no debit entry made in the defendant’s account. P.W.4 has spoken about the further correspondences of the plaintiff’s bank more particularly from the reconciliation Department are after the year 1983 only and therefore, his evidence do not support the case of the plaintiff as to the liability of the defendant to reimburse the amount remitted in its account. 19. P.W.5 is an employee of the plaintiff’s bank, who is the Chief Manager during July 1983 and his evidence cannot be given much importance for limited purpose as to the liability of the defendant to reimburse the amount claimed in the plaint as he does not speak about any debit entry in the credit of the defendant account representing the amount said to have been remitted by the plaintiff. The evidence of P.W.6 an officer in the George Town Branch would in fact disclose that there are no records to show that the Branch was asked to debit in the account of the defendant. In fact, he has deposed that he has not seen the debit note prepared by the Foreign Branch. His evidence also supports the evidence of P.W.2 as to the insufficiency balance that was available in the defendant account as on 7.11.1977 to make a valid and legal transfer of Rs.14,22,070.01. 20. From a combined reading of the evidence, we are of the view that the plaintiff has not established the liability of the defendant to reimburse the amount said to have been remitted by the plaintiff in the defendant account. Evidence of P.Ws.1 to 6 would ulmost disclose only the remittance aspect. In the absence of debit entry in the defendant’s account and in the absence of a communication as to the remittance to the defendant, it must be held that the plaintiff has not established the claim for a sum of Rs.49,30,270.94. 21. The findings of the learned single judge are based on the detailed discussions of both oral and documentary evidence let in by the plaintiff and also with the available materials, and the same are not liable to be interfered with. 21. The findings of the learned single judge are based on the detailed discussions of both oral and documentary evidence let in by the plaintiff and also with the available materials, and the same are not liable to be interfered with. On this ground also, the appeal fails and the same is liable to be dismissed. 22. For all the reasons stated above, we find no merit in the appeal. Hence, this appeal is dismissed. No costs.