JUDGMENT ( 1. ) THIS Civil Revision Petition under section 18 of the Small Causes Court Act against the Judgment and decree dated 15-2-2006 passed by the II Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Dn. ,) at Gulbarga, in SC No. 33 of 2004, thereby dismissing the suit as barred by limitation. ( 2. ) THE suit of the plaintiff was for recovery of a sum of Rs. 16,500/-with interest at 23% per annum from 14-12-2000 till the date of realisation and with cost etc. The defendant though did not contest the suit, the learned trial Judge examined the case of the plaintiff, particularly, the plaintiff-firm itself having pleaded that the loan transaction was of the year 2000, i. e. , to be precise on 13-9-2000 and the suit having been filed beyond the period of three years form this day, prima facie, the suit was barred by limitation, framed the point whether plaintiff-firm was entitled to the relief claimed for and having answered the same in the negative holding that the suit is barred by limitation and having dismissed the suit, the present petition by the plaintiff. Submission of Sri Pramod Kulkarni, learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the learned Judge of the trial Court committed an error in law in dismissing the suit as barred by limitation; that in respect of the suit transaction, there was a clear admission on the part of the respondent who had received a legal notice issued by the petitioner-plaintiff demanding the amount who had in the reply notice marked as Exhibit-P8 in the suit had conceded that there was a loan transaction between the parties, but had disputed the amount, had also indicated that the amount borrowed was only Rs. 10,000/-; that it had been repaid with interest; that in all the defendant had paid a sum of Rs. 12,400/- and therefore was pleading discharge of the loan; that in respect of the suit claim, nevertheless there being an acknowledgment of the loan transaction, this reply notice revives the period of limitation from that point of time and suit being within three years from the date of reply notice, the trial Court should have answered the question of limitation in favour of the plaintiff and therefore the impugned order is bad in law; that the limitation being a question of law, this aspect has to be necessarily examined by this Court. ( 3. ( 3. ) IN this regard, the learned Trial Judge has examined this aspect of the dispute. It was found in terms of the reply notice that the defendant had in fact paid the total sum of Rs. 12,400/- till 25-4-2003 and therefore pleaded discharge. The plaintiff has not disputed this aspect. The plaintiff was interested in only getting the balance of the amount after giving credit for a sum of Rs. 12,400/- received by the plaintiff towards principal and interest etc. In fact, the suit claim was after giving credit to this amount received by the plaintiff. It is only in respect of disputed amount, suit had been laid. In so far as the disputed amount is concerned, as rightly found by the learned Trial Judge, there is no admission on the part of the defendant which can be said to have given rise for a new cause or fresh cause of action so that the limitation can start afresh from such acknowledgment and from such fresh cause of action. ( 4. ) I am of the view that the learned Trial Judge has rightly appreciated the legal position that arises on such factual premise. There was no acknowledgment of the amount for which the suit had been laid and in b. V. Krishnaveni Vs. Management of Sri Taralabalu Jagadguru E. S. 155 respect of the amount of the loan transaction, acknowledged in the reply notice, discharge having been pleaded and that aspect of the matter being not disputed by the plaintiff, there is no acknowledgment of debt by the defendant in respect of the amount for which suit had been filed. If so, there is no renewal or revival of cause of action. The suit as filed was clearly barred by limitation from the original date on which cause of action arose. Learned Trial Judge has rightly answered this question and therefore there is no merit in this revision petition which is dismissed levying cost of Rs. 1,000/- in favour of the respondent. Cost to be paid within a period of four weeks from today failing which it shall be recovered by the respondent as a decree of the Civil Court on the strength of this order by making an application before the trial Court.