JUDGMENT [Hon’ble B.S. Verma, J. (Oral)] (Restoration Application No. 590/2012) Heard Sri A.V. Pundir, Advocate for the petitioner and Sri B.P. Nautiyal, Senior Advocate along with Sri Manokam Nautiyal, Counsel for respondent on restoration application. 2. The reasons shown are sufficient. The restoration application is allowed. The writ petition is restored to its original number. Also heard on merit of the case. 3. By means of this petition the petitioner has sought a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned orders dated 23-1-20 10 and 12-1-2011, passed by 1st Additional Civil Judge (J.D.), Dehradun and 1st Additional District Judge/5th F.T.C. Dehradun respectively, contained as Annexure Nos. 6 and 8 to the writ petition. 4. The facts of the case, in short, are that a suit for recovery of an amount of Rs. 77,125/- was filed by plaintiff/respondent against the defendant/petitioner. Instead of filing the W.S. the defendant filed application 105-C/2, U/O 7 Rule 11 C.P.C. for return of the plaint on the ground that the suit is barred by limitation. Objection was filed against the application 105-C/2. By the impugned order dated 23-1-2010, the 1st Addl. Civil Judge (J.D.) has rejected the application 105-C/2 filed U/O 7, Rule 11 C.P.C. on the ground that the plaintiff is entitled for the benefit of Section- 18 of the Limitation Act. The revision preferred before the 1st Addl. District Judge/5th F.T.C. Dehradun too was dismissed on the same ground. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that when the suit was filed date of reply of notice was not given and the plea of limitation by refusal from the date of reply of notice was not taken and when amendment was sought the date of reply of notice was noted in the relief clause and the plea of limitation by refusal was taken thereafter. 6. Any amendment made in the plaint would be treated from the date of filing of suit, the above plea is misconceived. 7. In the plaint it is specifically stated that the defendant had replied the notice sent by the plaintiff for making payment of the amount under the suit and in reply specific refusal has been made. By a perusal of the notice dated 15-3-1994 it shows that in para-3 of the notice it has been mentioned that cheque No. 0530893 dated 4-5-1993 amounting to Rs. By a perusal of the notice dated 15-3-1994 it shows that in para-3 of the notice it has been mentioned that cheque No. 0530893 dated 4-5-1993 amounting to Rs. 10,000/- was given for the adjustment and two other cheques were given as advance without receiving the goods. In para-5 of the notice it was mentioned that the defendant had paid a sum of Rs. 10,000/- in cash on 29-5-1993 but the cheque was not returned. Therefore, he is not liable to pay any amount demanded in the notice. It is significant to mention here that the reply of notice indicate existence of Jural relationship, such as that of debtor and creditor between the plaintiff and respondent. 8. In view of explanation (a) of sub-section (2) of section- 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963 the refusal to pay any claim to set-off would be treated the acknowledgement for the purpose of Section 18, and the limitation would start in view of sub-section (1) from the date of refusal of liability to make payment. Therefore, the learned trial court as well as the appellate court have rightly rejected the application 105-C/2 and came to the conclusion that the suit is within time. 9. The writ petition is dismissed. 10. Since the suit pending before the trial court is of the year 1997, therefore, the trial court is directed to decide the suit expeditiously as far as possible. The petitioner/defendant is also directed not to seek unnecessary adjournments in the suit.