Judgment :- Aggrieved over an order of dismissal made by the I Assistant City Civil Judge, Madras, in I.A.No.18267/2006 in O.S.No.6794/2004, the defendant has brought forth this revision before this Court. 2. The Court heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner. 3. No case is made out by the petitioner even for an admission of the revision or for ordering notice to the opposite party for being heard. 4. It was a suit for recovery of money alleging that the plaintiff carried out the fire fighting work at the Air Port Site-ATS Project at Madras Air Port; that thereafter, then and there, bills were being sent; that the bills were actually received by the defendant; that it was a running bill; that the plaintiff contacted the defendant on 24. 2001 and demanded payment for which the defendant requested to send the bills once again; that accordingly, two sets of bills were sent to the defendant; that in one set of bills, the defendant actually signed and returned acknowledging its liability, and thus, the cause of action for the suit has arisen only on 24. 2001; that apart from that, the defendant has also sent a letter on 23. 2004 accepting the liability and agreeing to settle the bill amounts; and that under the circumstances, the suit was within time since it was filed in April 2004. 5. On appearance, the defendant took an application for rejection of the plaint since it did not make out a cause of action, and it was also barred by time. 6. After giving opportunity to the plaintiff for filing counter, the lower Court made an equiry and dismissed the application. Aggrieved, the defendant has brought forth this revision before this Court. 7. The learned Counsel for the petitioner/defendant would submit that admittedly, all these pieces of work were done only in the year 1997, and thus, the suit should have been filed for recovery of money on the basis of the work within a period of 3 years; that apart from that, there was no privity of contract between the parties; that it is alleged that there was a communication addressed on the two sets of bills that was in 2001; that apart from that, the letter dated 23. 2004, relied on by the opposite party namely the plaintiff, cannot extend the period of limitation; that it was quite clear that the suit was well within time; that apart from that, the lower Court has pointed out in its order that in Ex.A4, which was written by the defendant to the plaintiff, it is stated that liability could be fixed only after the arbitration proceedings were over; that at that time, there was no arbitration proceedings, and hence, the said document is not valid under the Limitation Act; that under the circumstances, the plaint should have been rejected by the lower Court; but, it failed to do so, and hence, this revision has arisen. 8. After careful consideration of the submissions made, and looking into the materials available, this Court is of the considered opinion that the order of the lower Court has got to be sustained. From the very reading of the plaint, it would be quite clear that the transaction was actually a running transaction; that two sets of bills were actually served upon the defendant; that out of those bills, one set of bills was signed and given by the defendant on 24. 2001, and it was actually filed along with the plaint. It is further pointed out in the plaint that a letter has been written by the defendant on 23. 2004 accepting the liability and agreeing to settle the bill amounts. The lower Court has pointed out that a perusal of Ex.A4 would clearly reveal that the liability could be fixed only after the arbitration proceedings are over. Thus, the acknowledgement of liability could be inferred there from. Now, at this juncture, what was all requested by the defendant, who is the petitioner herein, is the rejection of the plaint. This Court is of the view that it is a case where the issues have got to be framed, and the trial Court has to weigh and appraise the evidence before which the plaint cannot be rejected. As far as the question of limitation is concerned, according to the plaintiff, the suit was well within time. Now, the contention as if it was barred by time cannot be appreciated. Under the circumstances, the order of the lower Court has got to be sustained. Accordingly, it is sustained. 9. In the result, this civil revision petition is dismissed. No costs. Now, the contention as if it was barred by time cannot be appreciated. Under the circumstances, the order of the lower Court has got to be sustained. Accordingly, it is sustained. 9. In the result, this civil revision petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected MP is also dismissed. However, the observations made above, will not prevail upon the trial Court in taking a decision on merits and in accordance with law, on the issues to be framed by that Court in the suit.