JUDGMENT 1. - This is defendant's second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short CPC) against the judgment and decree dated 5.9.1990 passed by Additional District Judge No. 2, Kota in Civil Appeal No. 75/1986 whereby the appeal filed by the appellant-defendant has been dismissed and the judgment and decree dated 10.11.1985 passed by Munsif, Kota City (South) in Civil Suit No. 273/1981 by which the money suit filed by the plaintiff was decreed has been affirmed. 2. The parties hereinafter shall be referred in the manner as they were arrayed in the plaint. 3. Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for recovery of principal amount of Rs. 2388.78 along with interest thereon of Rs. 1411.22 against the defendant. The case of the plaintiff is that plaintiff firm is a registered partnership firm situated at Ghantaghar, Kota and the defendant is running a shop of garments at village Digod and for that purpose he used to purchase cloth from the plaintiff firm and firstly the defendant purchased cloth on 3.4.1975 of Rs. 1780.49 from the plaintiff firm and paid Rs. 1100/- in lieu thereof and stated to the plaintiff that in future his servant Mangal Ram shall purchase the cloth and bill thereof be endorsed in the name of Mangal Ram and on the day of first transaction Mangal Ram was with the defendant and on various occasions Mangal Ram on the directions of the defendant purchased cloth of Rs. 8599.27 and amount against the purchase was paid from time to time and the plaintiff firm used to incorporate the entries of these transactions in the books of accounts and thereafter the amount outstanding against the defendant was Rs. 2388.78 which was informed by the plaintiff firm to the defendant vide postcard dated 22.6.1978 but the defendant while admitting the outstanding amount did not pay the amount and, therefore, after calculating the interest of Rs. 1411.22 @ 1.25% per month (15% per annum) on the original outstanding amount of Rs. 2388.78, a decree for a total sum of Rs. 3800/- was sought. 4. The defendant in written statement denied all the averments of the plaint and took the ground of limitation, jurisdiction with further plea that the plaintiff firm is not registered one and, therefore, the suit is not maintainable. 5. 2388.78, a decree for a total sum of Rs. 3800/- was sought. 4. The defendant in written statement denied all the averments of the plaint and took the ground of limitation, jurisdiction with further plea that the plaintiff firm is not registered one and, therefore, the suit is not maintainable. 5. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed " 1- vk;k fd izfroknh ,oa mlds funsZ'k ij ukSdj eaxyjke }kjk oknh dh nqdku ls fnukad 3-4-75 ls ysdj fnukad 6-12-75 rd fHkUu&fHkUu rkjh[kksa ij fcyksa }kjk 8]599-27 u;s iSls dk diM+k m/kkj dz; fd;k ,oa mlds isVs vnk;xh djus ds mijkUr oknh dks izfroknh ls 2]388 = 78 iSls diM+ksa dh m/kkj ds ysus cdk;k jgsA 2- vk;k dh oknh izfroknh ls diM+s dh cdk;k jde ij 1 = 25 u;s iSls lSdM+k ekfld C;kt nj ls C;kt ikus dk vf/kdkjh gSA 3- vk;k fd nkok cs:u fe;kn gksus ls fujLruh; gSA 4- vk;k fd vnkyr gktk dks izLrqr okn lquus dk Jo.kkf/kdkj ugha gSA 5- vk;k fd QeZ oknh bafM;u ikVZujf'ki ,DV ds rgr jftLVMZ ugha gS blfy;s nkok ykus dk vf/kdkj ugha gSA 6- vk;k fd oknh ds ikl euhySf.aMx dk ykbZlsal ugha gksus ls nkok [kkfjt gksus ;ksX; gSA 7- vk;k izfroknh ls /kkjk 35 ( v ) tkIrk nhokuh ds rgr gtkZuk izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gSA 8- i{kdkj fdl lgk;rk ds ik= gSA " 6. The trial court after recording the evidence and hearing the parties decided all the above issues in favour of the plaintiff and decreed the suit of the plaintiff firm for a total sum as claimed by the plaintiff in the suit. 7. The defendant being aggrieved of the judgment and decree of the trial court filed an appeal which was dismissed by the First Appellate Court and the judgment and decree of the trial court was affirmed. Hence, this second appeal by the defendant. 8. This Court on 13.12.1991 while admitting the appeal framed following substantial questions of law 1. Whether the lower court committed illegality in not considering the case of the defendant-appellant only on the ground that the defendant did not initiate criminal proceedings against the plaintiff for forging Ex.2 to 4 and 16 ? 2. Whether the lower court committed illegality in placing burden of proof of issue no. 3 regarding limitation of the appeal? 3. Whether the lower court committed illegality in not considering the case of the defendant-appellant only on the ground that the defendant did not initiate criminal proceedings against the plaintiff for forging Ex.2 to 4 and 16 ? 2. Whether the lower court committed illegality in placing burden of proof of issue no. 3 regarding limitation of the appeal? 3. Whether the judgment is based on un-proved documents marked Ex. 5 to 15? 4. Whether the judgment of the lower appellate court is based on non-reading and mis-reading of the parties? 9. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgments of the courts below and other material available on the record. 10. Learned counsel for the defendant firstly contended that neither the defendant purchased any cloth from the plaintiff-firm nor signed on any bill and he did not write any postcard to the plaintiff. It was then submitted that the case of the defendant was not properly considered by the first appellate court and wrongly dismissed the appeal for the reason that defendant did not initiate criminal proceedings against the plaintiff for alleged forged bills Ex. 2 1 to Ex. 4 and Ex. 16-postcard. It was also submitted that the trial court has erred in placing burden of issue of limitation upon defendant specially when the plaintiff has come with the specific case that burden of limitation for filing suit has been extended due to acknowledgment of liability through its postcard dated 22.6.1978. In support of the contentions, reliance has been 1 placed upon the judgment delivered in the case of State of Rajasthan and another v. The Bundi Electric Supply Co., Ltd., Bundi and another, reported in AIR 1971 Rajasthan 24 wherein it has been held that acknowledgment of liability should be in respect of amount sought to be recovered. He also replied upon the judgment delivered in the case of Chandra Bhukhan and others v. Ramdutt Mahto and others, reported in AIR 1947 Patna 139 , wherein it has been held that burden of proving that handwriting on acknowledgment is that of judgment-debtor is on decree holder where judgment-debtor denied the acknowledgment. It was lastly submitted that both the courts below have not properly appreciated the evidence and decree has been passed by misreading and non-reading of the evidence merely on surmises and conjectures. 11. It was lastly submitted that both the courts below have not properly appreciated the evidence and decree has been passed by misreading and non-reading of the evidence merely on surmises and conjectures. 11. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent supported the judgments of the courts below and contended that trial court and first appellate court after considering the entire evidence decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff. It has also been submitted that first appellate court did not base its judgment only on the ground that defendant did not initiate criminal proceedings against the plaintiff in regard to the documents produced by the plaintiff but while considering the entire material and circumstances the court below only made some observations in this regard whereas the judgment of the first appellate court is based on proper evaluation of the entire evidence. It was also submitted that defendant-appellant has raised the issue of limitation, therefore, burden was placed upon him to prove that suit was time barred, otherwise also both the parties were aware about the issues involved in between the parties and they led the evidence, therefore, question of burden of proof lost its significance. It was further submitted that plaintiff was able to prove that defendant purchased cloth and signed the bills Ex. 2 to Ex. 4 and it has also been proved by the plaintiff that he is maintaining the regular books of accounts and all the transactions have been incorporated in the account books regularly kept in his business premises. It was also submitted that Ex. 16-postcard which has been written by the defendant acknowledging his liability has also been produced and exhibited and both the courts below have also compared the signatures of the defendant on the alleged documents from his admitted signatures for their satisfaction to arrive at a correct and lawful conclusion and in this situation finding of fact cannot be disturbed in second appeal. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment delivered in the case of Food Corporation of India v. Assam State Co-Operative Marketing & Consumers Federation Ltd. & Ors., reported in 2005 (1) WLC (SC) Civil page 67 , wherein it has been held that if a letter is coming from proper custody, the same should have been held to be proved. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment delivered in the case of Food Corporation of India v. Assam State Co-Operative Marketing & Consumers Federation Ltd. & Ors., reported in 2005 (1) WLC (SC) Civil page 67 , wherein it has been held that if a letter is coming from proper custody, the same should have been held to be proved. It has also been held that so long statement amounts to admission acknowledging jural relationship and existence of liability, it is immaterial that the admission is accompanied by an assertion that nothing would be found due from person making admission. 12. I have considered the rival submissions made at the bar. It is true that a suit cannot be decreed only on the ground that criminal proceedings have not been initiated by the defendant in regard to alleged forged documents which were basis of the suit but while considering the evidence and circumstances this aspect may also be considered. In the instant case, the first appellate court has considered this circumstance while dealing with the merits of the case but the judgment of the first appellate court is based upon the discussions of entire evidence and circumstances, therefore, it cannot be said that the first appellate court has affirmed the decree only because the defendant did not initiate criminal proceedings against the plaintiff for forging the documents marked as Ex. 2 to Ex. 4 and Ex. 16. 13. So far placing reliance upon the unproved documents marked as Ex. 5 to Ex. 15 is concerned, these are the compared photocopies of the bills of the goods allegedly purchased by the defendant or under his instructions but besides these documents plaintiff has also proved the entries of his account hook, which has been maintained regularly and kept at his business premises. Therefore, it cannot be said that the judgment is based only upon the documents marked as Ex. 5 to Ex. 15. 14. So far placing of burden of proof of issue no. 3 upon the defendant regarding limitation of the suit is concerned, it is evident from the written statement filed by the defendant that he specifically raised the objection that suit is barred by limitation, therefore, on his specific pleadings this issue has been framed. 5 to Ex. 15. 14. So far placing of burden of proof of issue no. 3 upon the defendant regarding limitation of the suit is concerned, it is evident from the written statement filed by the defendant that he specifically raised the objection that suit is barred by limitation, therefore, on his specific pleadings this issue has been framed. Otherwise also, in my considered view this objection of burden of proof lost its significance since both the parties were aware about the issues involved in the litigation and they joined the issue and led the evidence. Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Narayan Bhagwantrao Gosavi Balajiwale v. Gopal Vinayak Gosavi and others, reported in AIR 1960 Supreme Court 100 had occasion to consider this aspect and observed that where, however, parties have joined issue and have led evidence and the conflicting evidence can be weighed to determine which way the issue can be decided, the abstract question of burden of proof becomes academic. Both the courts below after considering the entire evidence have held that defendant wrote postcard dated 22.6.1978 to the plaintiff acknowledging his liability with the assurance to make the payment soon and for their satisfaction also compared the signatures on the alleged documents from the admitted signatures of the defendant and also considering the other evidence led by both the parties and after critical examination of the evidence, decreed the suit. Therefore, it cannot be said that the impugned judgment is based upon non-reading and misreading of the evidence. 15. In view of the entire discussion made here-in-above, I do not find any good reason to interfere with the concurrent findings arrived at by both the courts below. 16. Consequently, this appeal is hereby dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******