JUDGMENT : Amitav K. Gupta, J. This appeal has been filed by the appellant/plaintiff being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and decree dated 03.06.1997 and 11.06.1997 respectively passed in Money Suit. No.12 of 1993 by IVth Additional Sub-Judge, Ranchi whereby the suit of the appellant/plaintiff was dismissed. 2. For the sake of convenience the parties shall be referred as plaintiff/appellant and defendant/respondent in the present appeal. 3. In brief, the case of plaintiff is that he is a practicing advocate and was advocate for the defendants/Bank since 1975-76 and was entitled to charge the fees for drafting, conference, attending and arguing the cases for the Bank/defendants. It is submitted that he submitted the bills to the defendants/Bank for payment in the year 1985 but the same remained unpaid despite repeated reminders where after he served the notice dated 20.07.1991 on the respondents/Bank for payment of his bills. Again on 15.12.1992 he sent a letter to the respondents/Bank regarding the meeting held on 16.09.1992 and demanded payment of the outstanding bills but defendant no. 3 by letter dated 18.1.1993 refused to pay the dues hence, the aforesaid money suit was instituted for realization of his outstanding dues from the defendants/Bank. 4. Defendant no. 1 to 3 appeared but did not contest the suit and the suit proceeded ex parte against them. Defendant nos. 4 to 6 appeared and filed their written statement pleading therein that the suit was not maintainable as the plaintiff had no cause of action. That the suit was bad for mis-joinder of party as well as under the provisions of Specific Relief Act and the court fee paid was insufficient. The defendants stated that the plaintiff was an empanelled Advocate of the different branches of the defendants/Bank but the services of the plaintiff was not satisfactory. That no formal agreement was executed with respect to empanelment of the plaintiff/appellant. The empanelled Advocates were being paid fees according to the schedule of fees which was amended from time to time. The above fact was known to the plaintiff and he agreed to work as an empanelled Advocate of the Bank but no separate agreement was entered into with him with respect to payment of fees. The empanelled Advocates were being paid fees according to the schedule of fees which was amended from time to time. The above fact was known to the plaintiff and he agreed to work as an empanelled Advocate of the Bank but no separate agreement was entered into with him with respect to payment of fees. It is stated that plaintiff failed to submit periodical bills rather he submitted his bills for the first time in the year 1985, after more than three years, for payment of the work claimed to have been done but the same was time barred. Defendants have stated that the bills were not submitted as per the schedule or as per actual work done. That on 16.09.1992 a meeting was convened in which bank officials as well as plaintiff were present and after discussion minutes of meeting was prepared which was signed by everyone and the dispute with regard to payment of bills was settled and the entire dues of the plaintiff has been paid by the defendants/bank and no amount remained outstanding hence, plaintiff is not entitled to a decree of any amount and the suit was fit to be dismissed with cost. 5. On the pleadings of the parties, the Court below framed the following issues :- (i) Is the suit as framed maintainable? (ii) Has the plaintiff valid cause of action for this suit? (iii) Is the claim of the plaintiff barred by law of limitation and whether the account between the parties were mutual open and running? (iv) Was there any agreement between the plaintiff and defendant regarding schedule of fees for different work done by the plaintiff or the plaintiff being empanelled Advocate of defendants was entitled to be paid his professional bill as per schedule of fee of empanelled Advocate as fixed by the defendants/ bank as amended from time to time? (v) Whether the plaintiff's entire dues was paid as per agreement dated 16.09.1992? (vi) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to realise the amount claimed in this suit with interest as claimed? (vii) Whether court fee paid by the plaintiff is sufficient? (viii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get a decree as prayed in this suit? (ix) To what relief or reliefs the plaintiff is entitled for? 6. Both the parties adduced evidence both oral and documentary. (vii) Whether court fee paid by the plaintiff is sufficient? (viii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get a decree as prayed in this suit? (ix) To what relief or reliefs the plaintiff is entitled for? 6. Both the parties adduced evidence both oral and documentary. The plaintiff/appellant examined himself as P.W.2 and his clerk was examined as P.W.-1. The documents filed by the plaintiff were marked as Exts. 1 to10. The defendants examined altogether twelve witnesses i.e. D.W.1 to D.W.12 and adduced documentary evidence which were marked as Exts. A to M. On the basis of the oral and documentary evidence and the materials available on record, the trial court dismissed the plaintiff's (appellant herein) suit against defendant nos. 4 to 6 with cost and ex-parte against defendant nos. 1 to 3 without cost. Being aggrieved with the dismissal of the suit the plaintiff/appellant has preferred the present appeal. 7. The appellant-in-person has strenuously contended that judgment and decree of the learned Court below is contrary to the facts and materials on record and is not sustainable in law hence, it deserves to be set aside. It is argued that the court below has failed to appreciate that the terms and conditions enumerated in Ext.'C', i.e. the agreement arrived at between the parties were not implemented nor satisfied therefore, the said agreement has no value in the eye of law consequently the plaintiff/appellant is entitled to be paid the entire amount of professional fees by the defendant/respondent-Bank. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for the defendants/respondents (Bank), has submitted that the trial court has appreciated and considered the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties and passed the judgment after discussing the evidence in threadbare details and the findings recorded by the learned Court below are in accordance with fact and law which does not require any interference by this Court. Learned counsel has referred to paragraphs 12 and 13 of the impugned judgment and submitted that Ext.C vis-a-vis Register IX, has been considered by the trial court whereby both the parties had agreed that fifty percent (50%) of the amount is to be paid to the plaintiff by the defendants. The plaintiff had signed the agreement and accepted the amount as full and final settlement of the dispute. The plaintiff had signed the agreement and accepted the amount as full and final settlement of the dispute. It is argued that the suit of the plaintiff is barred by law of limitation and the finding has been recorded on this issue against the plaintiff. Learned counsel has contended that the impugned judgment does not suffer from any perversity and the present appeal is fit to be dismissed. 9. In view of the submissions advanced on behalf of both the parties, the main question that arises for determination in the instant appeal is "whether the plaintiff's suit for recovery of amount for the work done by him is barred by law of limitation and whether he is entitled for recovery of the said amount or not?" 10. The chequered history and events leading to the institution of the suit is disclosed in the plaint. It is not disputed that the plaintiff/appellant was in the panel of Advocates for rendering professional services to the defendants/Bank by representing the Bank to protect its interest. Plaintiff has pleaded that he submitted his bills in the year 1985 for the work done by him from 1976 to 1985. Thereafter he again submitted corrected bill on 23.10.1986 and then again on 16.11.1986, subsequently he again submitted his bills on 22.12.1989 but the bills remained unpaid where after on 20.07.1991 he sent a legal notice for clearance of the unpaid bills but in vain. Lastly on 15.12.1992, the plaintiff demanded payment of the outstanding bills by detailing the events as also about the meeting held by the officials of the Bank on 16.09.1992. The defendant no.3 by letter dated 18.01.1993 refused to pay the amount stating that the payments of the arrears due had been made and no bills were outstanding. On receipt of the reply the plaintiff instituted the suit on 02.03.1993. 11. At this juncture it is pertinent to take note of Article 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963 which provides that the suit for the price of work done by the plaintiff for the defendant at his request, where no time has been fixed for payment, has to be filed within three years when the work is done. 11. At this juncture it is pertinent to take note of Article 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963 which provides that the suit for the price of work done by the plaintiff for the defendant at his request, where no time has been fixed for payment, has to be filed within three years when the work is done. In the present case, it is not in dispute as per the pleading of the plaintiff/appellant that the work was done by the plaintiff during the period from 1976 to 1985 and the plaintiff submitted the bills in the year 1985. In view of this admitted fact and considering the provision of Article 18 of Limitation Act it is amply clear that the plaintiff ought to have filed the suit in 1989 i.e. three years from the date of work done. No material document has been brought on record by the plaintiff to show that during these three years, the defendant/Bank ever acknowledged the liability regarding payment of the bills submitted by the plaintiff/appellant. Section 18 of Limitation Act reads as follows:- "18. Effect of acknowledgement in writing:- (1) Where, before the expiration of the prescribed period for a suit or application in respect of any property or right, an acknowledgement of liability in respect of such property or right has been made in writing signed by the party against whom such property or right is claimed, or by any person through whom he derives his title or liability, a fresh period of limitation shall be computed from the time when the acknowledgement was so signed. (2) Where the writing containing the acknowledgement is undated, oral evidence may be given of the time, when it was signed; but subject to the provision of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), oral evidence of its contents shall not be received." On plain reading of the provision it is evident that an acknowledgement may give a fresh starting point which must be of a subsisting liability and the same must be made before the expiry of the period of limitation prescribed for the suit. The acknowledgement must be clear and unambiguous but in the instant case at the cost of repetition, it is abundantly clear that the plaintiff has not brought-forth any material evidence regarding any acknowledgement made to this effect by the defendants/Bank. The acknowledgement must be clear and unambiguous but in the instant case at the cost of repetition, it is abundantly clear that the plaintiff has not brought-forth any material evidence regarding any acknowledgement made to this effect by the defendants/Bank. In the absence of any evidence in terms of Article 18 of Limitation Act the limitation will start running from the date of completion of work and mere submission by the plaintiff/appellant that he repeatedly demanded payment but the Bank kept assuring him cannot extend the limitation period in the absence of any documentary evidence. 12. In the considered opinion of this Court, the meeting held on 16.09.1992 cannot be said to be an acknowledgment within the meaning of Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Moreover, Ext. C pertains to 1992 and is not within the period of limitation prescribed by Section 18 of Limitation Act hence, Ext. C cannot be considered for extending the period of limitation as prescribed under Article 18 of the Limitation Act. 13. With respect to the question, as to whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount, it is apparent from the pleadings in the plaint that under a written agreement with the defendants/Bank he was handling the briefs of the defendants/Bank. There was a schedule of fees, however, it is seen from the oral evidence of the plaintiff i.e. P.W.2 that there was no written agreement regarding his schedule of fees with the defendants/Bank. Admittedly the plaintiff' was empanelled Advocate of the defendants/Bank and was handling the cases of defendant nos. 4 to 6. Though the Plaintiff has deposed that there was agreement with the defendants/Bank but he failed to produce any document regarding the agreement to substantiate his claim. The Plaintiff submitted his bills for the first time in the year 1985 for the work done by him for the defendants/ Bank from the year 1976 to 1985. He admitted that on 16.09.1992 a meeting was held between him and the officials of the defendants/Bank and discussion was held with respect to his pending bills where after the minutes of the meeting was drawn. It is significant to note that the plaintiff has not produced the copy of the minutes of the said meeting, however, minutes of meeting has been filed by the defendants which is Ext. It is significant to note that the plaintiff has not produced the copy of the minutes of the said meeting, however, minutes of meeting has been filed by the defendants which is Ext. C. Although the plaintiff has admitted the first and last page of the minutes but has denied page nos. 2 and 3 of the minutes dated 16.09.1992. Once the plaintiff has denied the said pages the onus was upon him to file the minutes of the meeting which was given to him to substantiate his claim that pages 2 and 3 of the minutes have been manipulated. The plaintiff has nowhere stated that the copy of minutes was not supplied to him. In the attending facts and circumstances there is no reason to disbelieve Ext. C filed by the defendants/Bank. On perusal of page 7 of the minutes dated 16.09.1992, i.e. Ext. C, it is amply clear that there was no agreed schedule of fee at the time of assignment or entrustment of work to the plaintiff'. The burden was upon the plaintiff to establish that there was agreement for schedule of fees to be paid to the plaintiff by the defendant/Bank but as noticed the plaintiff has not adduced any documentary evidence to establish this proposition. Further in the order dated 22.10.1992 (Ext.I) passed in C.W.J.C. No. 2440 of 1992 (R), filed by the plaintiff before Hon'ble Patna High Court, Ranchi Bench, Ranchi, it has been observed that "nothing has been brought on record to show that there was any agreement between the petitioner (plaintiff) and his client (defendants)" which shows that there was no separate agreement for schedule of fee of the plaintiff. Further, as per Ext. 'C' which mentions that for passing of the bills the schedule of fee was to be governed by Circular No. OJ/24/78 dated 23.10.1978. Since the genuineness of the appearance before the court by the plaintiff in prosecuting the case could not be verified without production of any document by the plaintiff hence, the bills submitted by the plaintiff were passed after reducing the appearance and hearing dates in the cases to 50%. Plaintiff has admitted that the bills were to be passed as per guidelines mentioned in Ext.C. He has also admitted in his cross-examination that he submitted his bills for a sum of Rs. 2,48,000/-. In his plaint he has asserted that the bill amounting to Rs. Plaintiff has admitted that the bills were to be passed as per guidelines mentioned in Ext.C. He has also admitted in his cross-examination that he submitted his bills for a sum of Rs. 2,48,000/-. In his plaint he has asserted that the bill amounting to Rs. 1,31,165/- against Namkum Branch, Rs. 1,20,625/- against Hatia Branch and Rs. 14,621/- against Morabadhi Branch were pending for payment which comes to around Rs. 2,66,411/-. He has also admitted that these bills were agreed to be passed as per agreement arrived at between the plaintiff and the defendants/Bank on 16.09.1992 (Ext.C.). According to Ext.C the schedule of fee was agreed as per the schedule rate mentioned in Circular no. legal/OJ/24/78 dated 23.10.1978 which are Rs.15/-, Rs.8/- and Rs.16/- for drafting and filing of the petition, for obtaining interim date and argument, respectively. This schedule of fee mentioned in Ext. C has to be accepted as it is admitted that a meeting was held on 16.09.1992 and an agreement was arrived at between the parties for payment of the pending bills of the plaintiff. As discussed above plaintiff has failed to establish that any other schedule of fee was fixed by the defendants/Bank. It was also decided that the number of dates will be reduced to 50% for calculating the dates attended by the plaintiff in the court. 14. It is noticed that plaintiff in this suit has claimed entire bill amount on different rates and has exhibited his bills as Exts. 1 to 10 series but as discussed above, plaintiff has admitted that on 16.09.1992 an agreement was made between him and the defendants/Bank for passing the bills and schedule rate of fee was agreed and it was also agreed that the bill will be reduced by reduction of dates by fifty percent (50%). Thus, once the parties had agreed on 16.09.1992 regarding the schedule of fees and number of dates then it would be deemed that the plaintiff had waived his right to claim on the basis of original bill. In his cross-examination, plaintiff has admitted that he had received Rs.25,000/- towards the arrears of bills due from 1976 to 1985 from the defendants/Bank after the agreement dated 16.09.1992. In the plaint, it is not stated by the plaintiff that he has filed the suit after deducting the amounts received by him. In his cross-examination, plaintiff has admitted that he had received Rs.25,000/- towards the arrears of bills due from 1976 to 1985 from the defendants/Bank after the agreement dated 16.09.1992. In the plaint, it is not stated by the plaintiff that he has filed the suit after deducting the amounts received by him. It is therefore concluded that despite accepting payment in terms of agreement dated 16.09.1992 plaintiff has filed the suit for entire amount which by itself disentitles him from any relief as he has not come to the Court with clean hands. 15. On the other hand, defendants/Bank have brought on record the carbon copy of the bills submitted by the plaintiff which have been marked as Ext.X series for identification. Defendants' witnesses have also stated that after verification plaintiff's bills were passed and after adjusting the temporary advance given by the bank to the plaintiff, balance amount was paid to the plaintiff which he had already received. D.W. 5, in para 4, has stated that on 16.09.1992 bill amounting to Rs.11,812.00 was pending for payment against Morabadi Branch which was checked and passed for Rs.3,624.00 by the Regional Office of the defendants/Bank. He has further stated that against the plaintiff temporary advance of Rs.5,000/- was outstanding in this Branch. Hence after adjusting Rs.3,624/- an amount of Rs.1376/- of the passed bill remained as balance with the plaintiff. A balance amount Rs.1376/- against Namkum Branch was remitted to Morhababi Branch towards adjustment of the above balance amount. D.W.6, the Manager of Hatia Branch, in para 3, has stated that the plaintiff has submitted a bill of Rs. 1,24,970/- out of which Rs.45,554/- was passed as per agreement dated 16.09.1992. He has further stated that after adjusting temporary advance given to the plaintiff a sum of Rs.4344.30 was paid to the plaintiff. D.W.7, the Manager of Namkum Branch, in para 2, has stated that the bills amounting to Rs.1,57,477/- against this Branch was pending and as per minutes, bill for Rs. 54,900/- was passed. He has further stated that Rs. 21,000/- was outstanding as temporary advance against the plaintiff. A balance amount of Rs. 1,376/- was remitted from Morhabadi Branch which was outstanding against plaintiff. Thus after deducting the advance a sum of Rs. 26,312/- was paid to the plaintiff by pay order. The plaintiff has not disputed the above payment. 16. He has further stated that Rs. 21,000/- was outstanding as temporary advance against the plaintiff. A balance amount of Rs. 1,376/- was remitted from Morhabadi Branch which was outstanding against plaintiff. Thus after deducting the advance a sum of Rs. 26,312/- was paid to the plaintiff by pay order. The plaintiff has not disputed the above payment. 16. The plaintiff has claimed that temporary advances which were given were used in purchase of court fees but the same were deducted from his professional fees. It is seen that plaintiff has failed to establish by evidence that he had paid court fees from the temporary advance and he is entitled for the amount which has wrongly been deducted from his bills of professional fee. It was the duty of the plaintiff to show that the amount received by him as temporary advance was actually paid as court fee but he has failed to do so. Therefore, the defendants/Bank have, in terms of the agreement dated 16.09.1992 (Ext.C), rightly deducted and adjusted the entire temporary advance outstanding against the plaintiff before payment of the outstanding amount. Thus, from the materials available on record it is evident that the pending bills of the plaintiff was passed as per the guidelines mentioned in the minutes of meeting dated 16.09.1992 and after adjusting the temporary advance the balance amount has already been paid to the plaintiff and no amount is due to be paid to the plaintiff by the defendants/Bank. 17. In view of the discussions made above and the materials on record it is held that plaintiff's suit is barred by law of limitation and the finding of the trial court on this question is hereby upheld. It is held that the plaintiff is not entitled for the amount claimed by him as the amount has been paid as per agreement dated 16.09.1992 (Ext.C) to which the plaintiff is a signatory. 18. In the result, the appeal is devoid of merit and is, hereby, dismissed without costs.