Judgment Hon'ble JAIN, J.—This appeal on behalf of the defendant under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure is directed against the impugned judgment and decree dated 26th February, 1991 passed by the Additional District & Sessions Judge, Karauli in Civil Suit No. 6/86, whereby the learned trial Court has decreed the suit of plaintiff-respondent for recovery of a sum of Rs. 26,180/-. 2. The briefly stated facts of the case are that plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 26,180/- against the defendant-appellant in the trial Court, where in it was pleaded that on 15th July, 1982 there was an open auction for navigation of boat on Rajghat in Gram Panchayat, Mongepara. The bid was made final in favour of defendant Jatan Singh. He deposited the part of amount but the remaining amount of Rs. 17,000/- was not paid by him, therefore, the present suit was filed for recovery of Rs. 17,000/-, Rs. 9180/- towards interest on it i.e. total Rs. 26,180/-. The suit was contested by defendant by filing a written-statement, wherein the main defence was that the suit is barred by limitation. The learned trial Court framed six issues. Both the parties led their oral and documentary evidence. The trial Court after considering the submissions of learned counsel for both the parties and evidence available on record, decreed the suit of plaintiff. 3. The only submission of learned counsel for the appellant is that the learned trial Court has committed an illegality in deciding issue No. 4 relating to limitation against the defendant, whereas the present suit filed by the plaintiff was barred by limitation. It is contended that the period of limitation in the present suit was three years. The date of auction was 15th July, 1982, whereas the suit was filed on 30th June, 1986, therefore, the trial Court wrongly decided issue No. 4 against the defendant. The said finding is liable to be set-aside and suit is liable to be dismissed being barred by limitation. 4. No one is present on behalf of the respondents despite service of notice of appeal. Hence, no assistance has been made on their behalf. 5. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant in the light of finding of the trial Court in respect of issue No. 4 relating to limitation. 4. No one is present on behalf of the respondents despite service of notice of appeal. Hence, no assistance has been made on their behalf. 5. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant in the light of finding of the trial Court in respect of issue No. 4 relating to limitation. There is no dispute that auction took place on 15th July, 1982 but the auction period in the present case was from 15th July, 1982 to 30th June, 1983, hence the limitation in the present case will commence from 30th June, 1983. That apart, the final bid in the name of defendant Jatan Singh was accepted on 5th October, 1982. He deposited Rs. 8,000/- in October, 1982, Rs. 8,000/- in January, 1983 and further Rs. 7500/- in March, 1983, he moved an application before plaintiff for granting time to deposit the remaining amount on 19th July, 1983. The said application was filed in the trial Court on behalf of the plaintiff and it was marked as Ex. 6. This fact has not been disputed by learned counsel for the appellant also. 6. The learned trial Court observed that the application Ex. 6 comes within the definition of `acknowledgment' and in these circumstances, the period of limitation will run from the date of application i.e. 19th July, 1983, hence the suit was filed in time. 7. I have also examined Ex. 6, an application filed by the defendant before plaintiff for extension of time to deposit the disputed balance amount and I find that the said application is nothing except an "acknowledgment". The said acknowledgment has been given in writing by defendant in favour of the plaintiff. In these circumstances, the trial Court rightly decided issue No. 6 and rightly held that suit was filed within the period of limitation. In these circumstances, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the said finding passed by the trial Court. No other argument has been advanced on behalf of the defendant. 8. In view of above discussion, I do not find any merit in this appeal and the same is, accordingly, dismissed with no order as to costs.