1. In this First Appeal, the plaintiff has challenged the judgment and decree dated 31.7.2006 and the Decree dated 10.8.2006 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) No.3, Kamrup at Guwahati in Money Suit No.129 of 2002. By that judgment, the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed basically on the point of limitation. 2. Plaintiff instituted Money Suit No. 129 of 2002 in the Court of learned Civil Judge (senior Division) No.3 at Guwahati stating that it is a Government of India undertaking having its Regional Office at Guwahati. The defendants on 4.4.1996 submitted an application before the plaintiff for getting benefit of Equipment Leasing Scheme to procure machineries for their industry. The defendants were engaged in wood and bamboo products. They are a partnership business under the name and style of M/s. Wild Grass (India) of which the defendant No.2 is a Managing partner and he submitted the application before the plaintiff asking for the benefit. By letter dated 27.12.1996 the plaintiff intimated the defendant that their prayer have been allowed and consequently a deed of agreement was executed between the parties on 31.01.1997 in regard to leasing out of machineries to the defendants. On 9.6.1997 the plaintiff supplied the machineries to the defendants of a value of Rs.16,73,963. This agreement was for a period of 5 years and during this period the plaintiff was entitled to a sum of Rs.29,76,840. The first installment fell due on 1.9.1997. On 8.9.1997 the defendants wrote a letter to the plaintiff praying for release of the machineries from the lease as they expressed their desire to get the agreement determined by making full and final payments of the entire lease rental. The defendants promised to make the payment within 30.12.1997. In the meantime the defendants issued a cheque on 5.12.1997 to the plaintiff for a sum of Rs.1,45,856 vide cheque No.0244459 on the bank of Baroda, Guwahati Branch but the same was bounced. Even on demand raised by the plaintiffs for making the cheque amount available the defendants failed. Thereafter, the defendants issued various cheques on 1.3.1999, 1.7.199 and 1.9.1999 but all these cheques were bounced. The plaintiff, therefore, issued the last demand letter on 14.9.1999 asking for the whole amount from the defendants, who on 24.3.2000 stated that they are not in a position to make payment of the same. Thereafter, the defendants issued various cheques on 1.3.1999, 1.7.199 and 1.9.1999 but all these cheques were bounced. The plaintiff, therefore, issued the last demand letter on 14.9.1999 asking for the whole amount from the defendants, who on 24.3.2000 stated that they are not in a position to make payment of the same. In the meantime, the machineries were returned to the plaintiff and the plaintiff took over the possession thereof on 2.1.2000. The plaintiff thereafter on 17.1.2002 asked the defendants to make payment of Rs.25,10,489 in all within a period of 15 days. But the defendants having failed to make the payment, the suit was instituted by the plaintiff for realization of sum of Rs.14,58,857 along with interest @ 22% per annum and further interest at the same rate. 3. On being summoned the defendant Nos.1, 3, 4, 5 and 6 appeared and submitted joint written statement contesting the suit. They took usual objections as to defect of parties, maintainability and also on bar of limitation. However, the defendants did not deny the fact that the machineries in question were leased out to them on agreement to make payment of rental as stated in the plaint. The defendant Nos.2 submitted a separate written statement and stated that he severed all connections with the partnership with effect from 4.3.1997. However, in regard to agreement between the palitniff and the other defendants and leasing out of the machineries were not denied by these defendants. Upon perusal of such pleadings of the parties, the learned trial court framed as many as 8 issues which are quoted below : "(i) Is there a cause of action for the suit? (ii) Is the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary party? (iii) Whether the suit is barred by limitation? (iv) Whether the suit is barred by estoppels, waiver and acquisence? (v) Whether the defendant admit taking of assistance from the plaintiff? (vi) Whether the defendant committed default in payment of outstanding dues to the plaintiff? (vii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get the decree for recovery of Rs.14,58,857? (viii) To what any other relief/reliefs the plaintiff is entiled to get?" 4. In course of trial the plaintiff examined one witness and exhibited as many as 7 documents. These witnesses were examined by the defendant Nos.1, 3, 4, 5 and 6. None of the defendants adduced any evidence either oral or documentary. 5. (viii) To what any other relief/reliefs the plaintiff is entiled to get?" 4. In course of trial the plaintiff examined one witness and exhibited as many as 7 documents. These witnesses were examined by the defendant Nos.1, 3, 4, 5 and 6. None of the defendants adduced any evidence either oral or documentary. 5. The learned trial court after considering all the evidence led by the parties held that there is cause of action for the suit, that the suit is not barred by estoppel, waiver and acquisence, etc., that the defendants took assistance from the plaintiff and they committed default in making payment of outstanding dues to the plaintiff, The issue No,3wtas decided in the affirmative, le learned trial court held that the suit is barred by limitation and consequently issue No.7 was also decided against the plaintiff holding that the plaintiff is not entitled to decree as prayed for. It is this judgment which has been brought under challenge in this present appeal. 6. I have heard Mr. S. Sarma, learned counsel for the appellant and Ms. B. Sarma, learned counsel for the respondents. I have perused the lower court records including the deposition of PW1 and Exhibits 1 to 7. 7. Exhibit 1 is letter dated 26.12.1996, whereby the plaintiff accepted the proposal to supply bamboo stick plant complete with accessories as per enclosed list the value of which was Rs.16,70,108. Exhibit-2 is the letter dated 27.12.1996, whereby the defendants were informed about the decision of the plaintiff to supply machineries under Equipment Lease Finance Scheme. Exhibit-3 is the agreement which shows that it was signed on 31.1.1997 and that it was for a period of 60 months with effect from 26.5.1997. By clause 3(a) of the agreement it was decided that lessee would pay by way of deposit a sum of Rs.1,38,910 equivalent debit as rental of 3 months as interest free security to be retained by the lessor at the time of execution of the agreement. By clause 3(b) it was decided the lessee should pay lesser during entire period quarterly rental as specified in Annexure-C annexed to the agreement. Clause 30 of the agreement shows that the amount of rental would be Rs.29,70,120 for whole period. Of course there was an Arbitration Clause under paragraph 31 of the application. By clause 3(b) it was decided the lessee should pay lesser during entire period quarterly rental as specified in Annexure-C annexed to the agreement. Clause 30 of the agreement shows that the amount of rental would be Rs.29,70,120 for whole period. Of course there was an Arbitration Clause under paragraph 31 of the application. However it appears that the defendants did not file any application under section 8 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, for referring the matter to arbitration. Exhibit-4 is the letter date 2.7.1997 issued by one P.K. Agarwal on behalf of the defendant No.1 acknowledging receipt of the machinery in good conditions. By that letter the defendants informed that the machineries were duly installed in their industry. Exhibit-5 is yet another letter written by a partner of the defendant No.1 firm to the General Manager of the plaintiff informing that they would settle the dues payable to the plaintiff before 31.12.1997. But by Exhibit-6 letter dated 24.3.2000 it was informed by the defendants to the Regional Director of the plaintiff company that the defendants were in a very bad financial condition and that they are not in a position to pay anything. Exhibit-7 is a statement of account as on 30.6.2002. The learned trial court held while deciding issue No.3 that the first installment become due on 1.9.1997 and the cause of action for recovery of Rs.29,76,840 arose on 1.9.1997. He also further held that since the plaintiff has described cause of action to have arisen on 4.4.1996, the Suit ought to have been filed on or before 1.9.2000. But the suit has been instituted on 31.8.2002 and thus the suit is barred by limitation. These findings of the learned trial court appear to be apparently erroneous. This is because, the plaintiff became entitled to Rs.29,76,840 for lease of the machineries for a period of 60 months with effect from 26.5.1997 and so this total amount would have been due only on 27.5.2002 and not on 1.9.1997 as held by the learned trial court, On 1.9.1997 only the rent for the first quarter of lease fell due. But the learned trial court was of the view that since in paragraph 19 of the plaint the plaintiff has mentioned date 4.4.1996 to be the first date of cause of action the suit ought to have been filed within 3 years from the first date. But the learned trial court was of the view that since in paragraph 19 of the plaint the plaintiff has mentioned date 4.4.1996 to be the first date of cause of action the suit ought to have been filed within 3 years from the first date. This finding of the learned trial court appears to be erroneous. In paragraph 19 of the plaint the plaintiff has furnished series of dates from 4.4.1996 to 1.6.2000 and it has been specifically stated as to what has happened on those dates. Plaintiff claimed that cause of action was on all these dates. The recital of paragraph 19 of the plaint Shows that Cause of action arose on each of these dates. 8. Apart from what has been stated above, the learned trial court does not appear to have considered Exhibit-5 and 6 for the purpose of deciding the issue on limitation. By Exhibit-5 the defendants informed the plaintiff on 8.9.1997 that they were willing to settle the dues before 31.12.1997. It is specifically stated in the last line of the first paragraph that the defendants would be able to make the full payment before 30.12.1997. From the language of Exhibit-3 agreement it is clear that there was fixed and settled amount of rental for each quarter and the defendants have not disputed the quarterly rent against the machineries. So when on 8.9.1997 defendants assured the plaintiff of making full payment before 31.12.1997 it amounted to acknowledgement of liability in writing under section 18 of the Limitation Act and consequently a fresh period of limitation started running with effect from 8.9.1997. The fresh limitation expired on 9.9.2000 but before that on 24.3.2000, the defendants wrote a fresh letter to the plaintiff vide Exhhibit-6. The letter dated 24.3.2000 (Exhhibit-6) also amount to acknowledgement of liability in writing for the same reason. For ready reference the letter is quoted below: “To The Regional Director, 24.3.2000 N.S.I.C. Ltd, R.G. Barua Road, Guwahati Sub: Final Settlement of our lease agreement. Dear Sir, With reference to the above and verbal discussion with you and CMD at New Delhi, we would like to inform you that, we are not in a position to pay you our dues. Dear Sir, With reference to the above and verbal discussion with you and CMD at New Delhi, we would like to inform you that, we are not in a position to pay you our dues. We have close down our factory long back due to non-receipt of Export order/buyback arrangement from the principal suppliers (mentioned in our previous letter No.WGI/NSIC/98-99?41 dated 18.3.1999) because the product has got no market in India. So we have to entirely dependent on Export. Hence we have Handover entire machines to you on 23.12.1999 in a very good condition as it was lying idle at out premises since trial run. Sir, at present we are in very bad financial condition and we are not in a position to pay you anything. And regarding our Raw Material Advance if any we request you to deduct the Amount from our security deposit (lying with you in form of F.D.) and pay the balance amount to us as we require some money to pay our other debts. We also request you to withdraw the case pending against us at Guwahati Court. Keeping in view of all the facts we would request you to kindly take a lenient view and approve the same. Thanking You, Yours faithfully S. Hazarika." A joint reading of Exhibits 5 and 6 would show that there was dispute in regard to liability between the parties. The defendants by Exhibit-5 not only acknowledged the liability but also assured the plaintiff of making full payment within 31.12.1997. Within 3 years thereafter on 24.03.1997 (sic, 24.3.2000) Exhibit-6 was issued by the defendants acknowledging liability for the second time but this time admitting inability to make payment. Even if this admission as to inability to make payment is construed to be refusal to make payment even then by operation of explanation (a) under section 18 of the Limitation Act the same would operate as acknowledgement in writing and consequently a fresh period of limitation has to be computed from the time when the acknowledgement was so signed. That means the date of limitation would be extended for another period of 3 years from the date and it would expire on 24.3.2003. Suit has been instituted on 31.8.2002 and so it was well within the period of limitation. That means the date of limitation would be extended for another period of 3 years from the date and it would expire on 24.3.2003. Suit has been instituted on 31.8.2002 and so it was well within the period of limitation. The learned trial court committed error in not considering the fact of acknowledgement in writing by the defendants and did not consider Exhibit 5 and 6 and, therefore, committed error in deciding issue No.3. The finding of the learned trial court, therefore, insofar as it relates to issue No.3 stands set aside and reversed. Consequently, it is held that suit has been filed within time. 9. Consequent to holding that the suit was barred by limitation the learned trial court held that the plaintiff was not entitled to any relief. Decision on point of limitation having been reversed the finding in regard to issue No.7 automatically goes. The finding in regard to issue No.7 is consequently set aside. Accordingly, Appeal stands allowed. The learned trial court shall decide the matter afresh to find out as to what relief the plaintiff is entitled to under issue No.7. Since it is a suit of 2002 and it involves huge amount of public money, the learned trial court shall endeavour to decide the suit expeditiously preferably within a period of 6 months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. The parties shall appear before the learned trial court on 1.7.2015 to obtain necessary orders. In the meantime the Registry shall transmit the records of the learned trial court. 10. No order as to costs.