JUDGMENT A.H. Saikia, J. 1. Heard Mr. G.N. Sahewalla, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. B.S. Singi, learned Counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. S. Dutta, learned Amicus Curiae who has been requested to assist the court by representing the Bank respondent. 2. Considering the short and limited point involved in this revision petition by which the order dated 14.3.1997 passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Dibrugarh in T.S. No. 67/92 was assailed on the ground that the learned Judge erroneously held that the suit was filed within the time, though as per records the suit was absolutely barred by limitation as the same was filed after a lapse of 3 years beyond the period of limitation prescribed for instituting a money suit and also upon hearing learned Counsel for the parties, this court proposes to terminate this revision petition finally as fixed today for final disposal vide order dated 1.8.2006. 3. Assailing the impugned order dated 14.3.1997, Mr. Sahewalla, the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioners, has strenuously argued that the court below acted illegally and with material irregularity in exercising its jurisdiction holding that the suit was not a time barred one, though the materials available on record explicitly reveal that the suit was filed on 25.9.1992 showing the cause of action arisen on 17.11.1988 which was apparently, being beyond the period of limitation of three years stipulated under the Limitation Act, 1963 ('the Act') for filing the money suit. His stand is that the trial court took an erroneous view in accepting a letter dated 7.12.1991 written by pro forma respondent No. 2 herein, Sri Jugal Kishore Ajitsaria addressed to the Manager of the Bank respondent as acknowledgement of the transaction of the defendant-petitioner with the plaintiff-Bank as the said letter dated 7.12.1991 cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, be accepted as an acknowledgement to satisfy the ingredients of Section 18 of the Act. 4. Per contra, Mr. Dutta, the learned amicus curiae has contented that a mere reading of the impugned order clearly reflects that the learned Judge discussed in details the effectiveness and applicability of the letter dated 7.12.1991 so as to bring the said letter within the meaning of Section18 of the Act. In accepting the letter dated 7.12.1991 as acknowledgement, according to Mr. Dutta, the learned amicus curiae has contented that a mere reading of the impugned order clearly reflects that the learned Judge discussed in details the effectiveness and applicability of the letter dated 7.12.1991 so as to bring the said letter within the meaning of Section18 of the Act. In accepting the letter dated 7.12.1991 as acknowledgement, according to Mr. Dutta, the learned Judge observed that the pro forma defendant No. 2, having acted as the attorney of defendant-petitioner No. 2, the proprietor of defendant-petitioner No. 1, in his capacity as attorney, by communication dated 7.12.1991 allowed the plaintiff-Bank to adjust the reinvestment certificate dated 25.1.1991, purchased by him, against the concerned loan of the petitioners. That being so, the learned Judge was wholly justified in holding that the suit filed on 25.9.1992 was very much within the limitation period accepting the acknowledgement of the loan vide letter dated 7.12.1991. 5. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentious arguments canvassed by the learned Counsel of the petitioners as well as Mr. Dutta, the learned amicus curiae for the Bank-respondent. 6. I have also meticulously scanned the materials available on record including the impugned order. It transpires that the learned Judge fundamentally relied on the letter dated 7.12.1991 to hold that the instant suit filed on 25.9.1992 in question was within the limitation period accepting the said letter as acknowledgement in terms of Section 18 of the Act with the reasons recorded that the pro forma respondent No. 2 herein and respondent No. 3 in the original suit, was attorney of the petitioner No. 2 who was running petitioner No. 1, a proprietorial firm and in his capacity of attorney, he allowed the plaintiff-petitioner by the said letter to adjust the reinvestment certificate No. 462263 dated 25.1.1991 against the loan taken by the petitioners. 7. It would be relevant and necessary to refer to the Section 18 of the Act which runs as under: 18. Effect of acknowledgement in writing. 7. It would be relevant and necessary to refer to the Section 18 of the Act which runs as under: 18. Effect of acknowledgement in writing. - (1) Where, before the expiration of the prescribed period for a suit or application in respect of any property or right, an acknowledgement of liability in respect of such property or right has been made in writing signed by the party against whom such property or right is claimed, or by any person through whom he derives his title or liability, a fresh period of limitation shall be computed from the time when the acknowledgement was so signed. (2) Where the writing containing the acknowledgement is undated, oral evidence may be given of the time when it was signed ; but subject to the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), oral evidence of its contents shall not be received. Explanation. - For the purposes of this section, - (a) an acknowledgement may be sufficient though it omits to specify the exact nature of the property or right, or avers that the time for payment, delivery, performance or enjoyment has not yet come or is accompanied by a refusal to pay, deliver, perform or permit to enjoy, or is coupled with a claim to set-off, or is addressed to a person other than a person entitled to the property or right; (b) the word "signed" means signed either personally or by an agent duly authorised in this behalf; and (c) an application for the execution of a decree or order shall not be deemed to be an application in respect of any property or right. 8. An ordinary reading of the above provision clearly indicates that the requirement of Section 18 of the Act for acknowledgement in writing is that a writing signed by the party himself against whom such property or right is claimed or any other person through whom he derives his title or liability, acknowledging the liability in respect of such property or right shall give rise to a fresh period of limitation. In the instant case, it is on the record that the pro forma respondent No. 2 herein was acting as the attorney of the petitioner No. 2 and as such the communication dated 7.12.1991 written by the pro forma respondent No. 2 to the Bank-respondent to adjust the loan amount in question against the petitioners from the abovementioned reinvestment certificate, in the considered opinion of this court, appears to be a valid acknowledgement. 9. In view of the same, this court is of the view that the learned Judge in arriving at a decision holding the suit was within time, acted legally and without any jurisdictional error and the same deserves no interference by this court by invoking revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 read with Section 151CPC. 10. In the result, this revision petition fails and stands dismissed. Interim order, if any passed earlier shall stands vacated. 11. Considering the valuable assistance rendered by Mr. Dutta, on being appointed as amicus curiae by this court on behalf of the Bank in deciding this revision petition, the Bank-respondent is directed to pay him his professional fees within a period of 2(two) months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 12. Since this is a long pending case, the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Dibrugarh is hereby directed to dispose of the instant suit within a period of 6(six) months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order from the Registry. 13. Registry is directed to send this order to learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Dibrugarh forthwith for the early disposal of the suit in question as indicated above. 14. Before parting with the case, this Court would like to put on record the following observations: (a) The instant suit being Title Suit No. 67/92 is a money proceeding filed by the Bank-respondent as far back as in the year 1992 against the petitioners arraying them as the defendants therein for recovery of sum of Rs. 5,09,172.05, pendente lite interest and auction sale of 37,000 kg. of imported tinplate waste in the court of learned Assistant District Judge, Dibrugarh. (b) In 1997, after a gap of 5 years, by the impugned order, the learned trial court, in entertaining a preliminary objection on the point of limitation, held that the suit was within the limitation period and decided the limitation point in favour of the Bank. of imported tinplate waste in the court of learned Assistant District Judge, Dibrugarh. (b) In 1997, after a gap of 5 years, by the impugned order, the learned trial court, in entertaining a preliminary objection on the point of limitation, held that the suit was within the limitation period and decided the limitation point in favour of the Bank. (c) Being aggrieved by the impugned order, the petitioner has moved this court through this revision petition and this court vide order dated 6.6.1997, at the time of issuance of notice of motion, granted interim relief to the petitioner by staying the further proceeding of the suit, i.e., Title Suit No. 67/92. (d) It is surprising and appalling to note that though the further proceeding of the suit filed by the Bank-respondent in 1992 was stayed in 1997, i.e., vide order dated 6.6.1997 abovementioned, the Bank-respondent has, till date, never enquired about the status of the suit in the trial court nor has preferred any application for vacating the interim order, although, it appears, the Bank is every much aware of such order. It is really a sorry state of affairs that for such apathy on the part of the Bank/respondent, the huge amount of public money involved in the litigation like the present suit is allowed to be foregone blissfully. (e) Thus, this court does hope and trust that the authority concerned shall look into the matter seriously and take appropriate steps to find the real cause and exact truth in allowing this instant suit to keep in abeyance due to stay order of this court since 1997 without taking any proper steps and thereafter, the Bank shall proceed accordingly to do the needful in this regard. 15. A copy of this order be furnished to the Managing Director, United Bank of India, Head Office at 16, Old Court House Street, Calcutta Immediately. Petition dismissed.