JUDGMENT This appeal has been filed challenging the judgment and decree passed by the learned Adhoc Additional District Judge (F.T.C.), Rourkela in Civil Suit NO. 61/55/2004-05. By the said judgment and decree, the suit filed by the appellant as the plaintiff against the respondent-defendants for recovery of sum of Rs. 1,04,902.10 paise has been dismissed. This dismissal of the suit thus has been called in question in this appeal. 2.For the sake of convenience, in order to bring in clarity and avoid confusion, the parties hereinafter have been referred to as they have been arrayed in the Court below. 3.Plaintiff, a proprietorship concern through its proprietor has filed this suit. It is his case that they undertake the work of different organizations and institutions as contractor. It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendants had awarded the plaintiff with the jobs for execution of certain works on sub-contract basis at different time. Those works were duly executed and completed within the stipulated time frame. It is said that despite of the same, the defendants did not make the payment of the bills and several approaches for the purpose did not yield any result. So, notice was served demanding such payment and in response the defendant No.2 in his letter dated 05.12.2000 admitted the claim of the plaintiff. However, it was stated that the payment was not being made as the Company was facing serious financial crunch. At the same time, assurance to make the payment was given at the moment the fund position takes off. In other correspondences similar assurances were being given. It is stated that the plaintiff was paid a sum of Rs. 20,000/- and Rs. 15,000/- by tow cheques dated 20.06.2001 and 15.01.2001 respectively. So, the outstanding dues on account of such execution of the work entrusted by the defendants to the plaintiff suit stands at Rs. 1,04,902.10 paise. Having waited for a long period finally the plaintiff filed the suit as no further payment was received from the defendants. The defendant no. 2 in the written statement admitted that the plaintiff was entrusted with the work for execution at different times by issuance of work orders from time to time. It is further stated that payments at different times have been made. However, the defendant no. The defendant no. 2 in the written statement admitted that the plaintiff was entrusted with the work for execution at different times by issuance of work orders from time to time. It is further stated that payments at different times have been made. However, the defendant no. 2 when asked the plaintiffs to obtain various statutory clearance, such as, certificate from ESIC for the purpose of release of the bills and clearing the payments, the plaintiffs failed to comply and so the payment could not be released. The trial Court has mainly dismissed the suit holding that the plaintiff failed to plead and prove that the suit claim relates to which work order and that the work under which work as per the terms of the contract when was completely executed and what was the conditions for payment by the defendants. Next, the suit has been held to be barred by limitation being filed after lapse of 8 years from the date when the cause of action for the same had arisen. 4.Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the findings of the trial Court are unsustainable both in fact and law. According to him, in view of the clear admission of the defendants in the correspondences as regards the claim of the plaintiff for the sum as claimed in the suit towards the works executed by him as per the order placed by the defendants, there was no reason for the trial Court to take amiss of the fact of non-pleading of details relating to different works as well as payments etc. in this connection, he has drawn the attention of the Court to the relevant pleadings in the plaint as well as in the written statement at paras 5 and 7 respectively. He further submits that the finding of the trial Court that the suit is barred by limitation is wholly unsustainable. According to him, simply looking at the fact concerning the acknowledgement of the claim of the plaintiff by the defendants in writing the period of limitation can well be computed from that date. For the purpose, he also banks upon the provision of Section 25 of the Contract Act. Thus, he urges that the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court are liable to be set aside and the suit of the plaintiff is to be decreed granting him the reliefs as prayed for. For the purpose, he also banks upon the provision of Section 25 of the Contract Act. Thus, he urges that the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court are liable to be set aside and the suit of the plaintiff is to be decreed granting him the reliefs as prayed for. 5.Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, supports the findings of the trial Court that the plaintiff was under obligation to specifically plead as regards the details of the work executed by him under different work orders at different times issued by the defendants, as also the details of the payment received and to show exactly as to the unpaid dues. He further submits that the trial Court has rightly held as regards the non-attractability of the provision of Section 18 of the Limitation Act in saving the period of limitation for the purpose of recovering the money claimed by the plaintiff. He urges that the acknowledgement of the debt in writing as required under Section 18 of the Limitation Act has to be well within the period of limitation and not beyond that so that the fresh period of limitation would run from that date of acknowledgement which is not the case here. 6.The plaintiff in the suit has laid a claim of Rs. 104,902.19 paise. After referring to different work orders issued by the defendants to him for the purpose of execution, in para-3 of the plaint; it has been pleaded in the next para, i.e. para-4 that there has been successful completion of the works entrusted to him for execution within the stipulated time. In para-5 it has been pleaded that the defendants failed to make the payment of the bills. The amount due as claimed has been indicated in para-7 of the plaint and thereafter it is stated that the defendants have never disputed it and rather have assured to make the payment expressing the inability of making this payment immediately because of the financial hardship that they were facing then. The defendants have not denied the averments of the plaint, right from the para-1 to 6. As regards the averments of para-7 of the plaint, it has been admitted in part. However, then going to describe further, it has been stated that the defendant no. The defendants have not denied the averments of the plaint, right from the para-1 to 6. As regards the averments of para-7 of the plaint, it has been admitted in part. However, then going to describe further, it has been stated that the defendant no. 2 has made various payment to the plaintiff against the contract works and the plaintiff being asked to obtain the statutory clearances, such as, no due certificate from ESIC in respect of the works executed by him having not submitted for release of the bills, there remained the failure and negligence on the part of the plaintiff. So, it is stated that such dues could not be released. In para-7 of the written statement, correspondences made by the defendant no.2 in response to the letters of the plaintiff have been admitted and lastly in an evasive manner it has been pleaded that the defendant no. 2 is not liable to make payment of the suit amount as demanded by the plaintiff. In this connection, attention of this Court has been drawn to two letters of defendant no. 2, i.e., Exts. 18 and 19 dated 20.06.2001 and 06.08.2001 respectively. This Ext. 18 was in reply to the plaintiffs notice 08.01.2000. Ext. 10 is with reference to plaintiffs letter dated 23.07.2001. The last part of Ext. 18 is quoted hereunder: “Herewith it will not be out of place to mention that due to funds crisis we have not been able to release due amount to your client at appropriate time. However, we have never denied the same. Also we once again intimate and assure that as soon as out fund position improves, balance amount i.e. , Rs. 1,39,902(-)Rs. 20,000/= Rs. 1,19,902.19 shall be released to your client in phases. Kindly advise your client to bear with us.” The relevant portion of Ext. 19 runs as under: “Since we have been facing acute financial crisis and have not been able to disburse salary/wages to our employees w.e.f. Nov. 2k, yet we assure you that the above amount shall be paid to you in installments in near future/as soon as out fund position improves.” Admittedly, thereafter payment of Rs. 15,000/- has been made through cheque dated 15.10.2001. So, the balance dues remains at Rs. 104902.19 paise. This is what the plaintiff seeks to recover from the defendants. The suit has been filed on 13.05.2004. 15,000/- has been made through cheque dated 15.10.2001. So, the balance dues remains at Rs. 104902.19 paise. This is what the plaintiff seeks to recover from the defendants. The suit has been filed on 13.05.2004. for the sake of argument, even accepting for a moment that after complete execution of work when the amount of the plaintiff became due upon the defendants for payment, the suit has not been filed within a period of three years from those dates, nonetheless is seen from Ext. 18 and 19 that the defendant no.2 has made clear cut admission without any sort of reservation as regards the dues of the plaintiff for being paid and payment has been assured to be made as and when there takes place the improvement in the financial position. It has been clearly stated that the payment could not be made not any other reason but for the financial crunch that they are facing. Thus its an unconditional promise in writing and signed by the person concerned to pay the dues of the plaintiff as demanded. In view of the above, I am of the considered view that the provisions of Section 25(3) of the Contract Act will come to the aid of the plaintiff to hold that the suit filed by the plaintiff is well within time. The trial Court is found to have erred in law by holding the suit to be barred by limitation having failed to take note of provision of Section 25 (3) of the Contract Act. In view of these Exts. 18 and 19 and on the face of the pleadings as referred to in the forgoing paragraphs, the trial Court also ought not to have gone to put the blame upon the plaintiff for not pleading those details relating to the work orders, conditions of execution of work, payments etc, with other details as regards the payment and receipts. Thus the judgment and decree passed by the Court below dismissing the suit are held liable to be set aside which is hereby done. 7.In the result, the appeal stands allowed with cost throughout. The suit of the plaintiff is decreed directing the defendants to pay a sum of Rs. 104902.19 paise to the plaintiff with pendent lite and future interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till payment. 7.In the result, the appeal stands allowed with cost throughout. The suit of the plaintiff is decreed directing the defendants to pay a sum of Rs. 104902.19 paise to the plaintiff with pendent lite and future interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till payment. The defendants are hereby directed to make the payment to the plaintiff as above within two months hence failing which the plaintiff is at liberty to recover the same by levying the proceeding for execution through Court. Appeal allowed.