JUDGMENT : Dr. A.K.Rath, J This petition challenges the order 26.12.2013 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sambalpur in C.S No.118 of 2010 whereby and whereunder learned trial court rejected the application of the defendants under Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC to reject the plaint. 2. Opposite party as plaintiff instituted C.S. No.118 of 2010 in the court of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sambalpur for recovery of Rs.4,49,823/-with pendente lite and future interest at the rate of 16.5% per annum. It is pleaded that the plaintiff is a company incorporated under the Companies Act. The plaintiff carries on business of distributing and marketing petroleum products. Defendant no.1 is a partnership firm represented by the partners defendant nos.2 and 3. A dealership agreement was executed by the plaintiff and the defendants on 27.11.2001. Defendants carried on business of sale of motor spirit, motor oil, greases and other motor accessories. The dealership was terminated on 28.11.2007. During subsistence of the dealership, the plaintiff-corporation and the defendants maintained a running account of transactions. Upon request of the defendants, the goods were supplied to them by the plaintiff as per the invoices. The last transaction was made on 31.7.2007. Since all persuasions made by the plaintiff ended in fiasco, notice was sent to the defendants on 11.11.2010 demanding payment of Rs.2,90,639.08 ps. Thereafter, the suit has been instituted with pendente lite and future interest at the rate of 16.5% per annum. 3. Defendants filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for rejection of plaint stating therein that the suit is barred by limitation. It is stated that the last supply was made on 31.7.2007. The same is the starting point of limitation. Thus the suit is barred by limitation. The plaintiff filed an objection to the same. It is stated that the allegations relating to disputed question of facts can only be decided in the suit. The plaint cannot be rejected upon the plea taken by the defendants in the written statement. Learned trial court assigned the following reasons and rejected the application. The plaintiff filed an objection to the same. It is stated that the allegations relating to disputed question of facts can only be decided in the suit. The plaint cannot be rejected upon the plea taken by the defendants in the written statement. Learned trial court assigned the following reasons and rejected the application. “The plaint reveals that the cause of action for the suit first arose on 28.11.2007 when the dealership of the defendants was terminated and thereafter on different dates of demand for the outstanding amount made by the plaintiff Corporation through its Officers on the defendants from time to time and finally on 11.11.2010 when lawyer’s notice was sent to the defendants to pay entire outstanding amount along with interest. In the present suit whether the plaintiff filed the suit beyond the period of limitation is a mixed question of law and fact which should be decided in the suit after hearing. Further whether the cause of action arose on 31.7.2007 or on 11.11.2010 when lawyer’s notice was sent to the defendants to pay entire outstanding amount along with interest will be decided after giving evidence by both parties. So at this stage the petition under Order 7 Rule 11(d) read with Sec.151 CPC premature and deserves no merit and hence rejected.” 4. Mr. Ghosh, learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that the last transaction was made on 31.7.2007. The same is the starting point of limitation. The suit was instituted on 25.11.2010. The limitation runs from the last date of supply of goods. The period of limitation for filing of the suit is three years under Article 14 of the Limitation Act. The suit is grossly barred by limitation and as such, the plaint is liable to be rejected. He relied on the decision of the apex Court in the case of Fatejhi & Company & another v. L.M. Nagpal & others, 2015 (II) OLR (SC) 128. 5. Per contra, Mr. Pattnaik, learned counsel for the opposite party, submitted that the limitation is a mixed question of law and fact. The instant suit is governed under Article 1 of the Limitation Act. The suit is filed within the stipulated time. Thus learned trial court has rightly rejected the application. 5. Per contra, Mr. Pattnaik, learned counsel for the opposite party, submitted that the limitation is a mixed question of law and fact. The instant suit is governed under Article 1 of the Limitation Act. The suit is filed within the stipulated time. Thus learned trial court has rightly rejected the application. He relied on the decision of the apex Court in the case of Popat and Kotecha Property v. State Bank of India Staff Association, (2005) 7 SCC 510 . 6. The question does arise as to whether Article 1 or Article 14 of the Limitation Act will apply to the facts of this case ? 7. Article 1 of the Limitation Act applies to suits for the balance due on the mutual, open and current account, where there have been reciprocal demands between the parties. In such a case limitation is three years computed from the close of the year in which the last admitted or proved is entered in the account. Article 14 of the Limitation Act applies to suits for the price of goods sold and delivered where no fixed period of credit is agreed upon. Period of limitation in such a suit is three years from the date of the delivery of the goods. 8. This Court in the case of Attadi Venketi v. M/s. Bharatam Ramulu and sons, AIR 1984 Orissa 226 held that the distinctive features of a mutual account are that there should be two sets of independent transactions between the parties and in one transaction one of the parties should be debtor and the other creditor, whereas in the other transaction the parties should occupy reverse positions. The dealings should indicate independent obligation on both sides and not merely obligations on one side. The test of mutuality is that the dealings between the parties should be such that the balance is sometimes in favour of one party and sometimes in favour of the other. 9. The plaintiff’s suit is not based on mutual, open and current account and as such, Article 1 of the Limitation Act shall not come into play. There is no reciprocal dealing and independent obligation. The plaintiff used to supply petroleum products whereafter the defendants used to remit the money. It was a case of supply of goods for a price to be paid. There is no reciprocal dealing and independent obligation. The plaintiff used to supply petroleum products whereafter the defendants used to remit the money. It was a case of supply of goods for a price to be paid. Payments were made in discharge of the obligations created by the delivery of goods made to the defendant and did not create any obligation on the plaintiff in favour of the defendants. Thus Article 14 of the Limitation Act is applicable to the facts of this case. 10. Defendant no.1 was a dealer of petroleum products. A dealership agreement was executed between the plaintiff and the defendants. The plaintiff used to supply petroleum products to the defendants. The dealership agreement was terminated on 28.11.2007. The plaintiff asserts that after adjusting the payment made by the defendants, an amount of Rs.2,90,639.08p was outstanding. The plaintiff sent several letters demanding payment and finally issued advocate notice on 11.11.2010. The last transaction was made on 31.7.2007. The same is a starting point of limitation. The period of limitation is three years for institution of the suit. The suit was filed on 25.11.2010. Thus the suit is barred by limitation. 11. Order 7 Rule 11 (d) CPC provides that the plaint shall be rejected where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law. 12. In L.M. Nagpal (supra), the apex Court held that in view of Order 7 Rule 11(a) and 11(d) CPC, the Court has to satisfy that the plaint discloses a cause of action and does not appear to be barred by any law. In the said case, the apex Court had an occasion to deal with a suit filed for specific performance of contract. Interpreting Section 54 of the Limitation Act, the Apex Court held that the limitation for filing the suit for specific performance of the contract is three years from the date fixed for the performance or if no such date is fixed, when the plaintiff has noticed that performance is refused. The apex Court came to hold that the suit was barred by limitation under Article 54 of the Limitation Act and accordingly, the order of the learned trial court rejecting the plaint was restored. 13. In Balasaria Construction (P) Ltd. V. Hanuman Seva Trust and others, (2006) 5 SCC 662 , the apex Court in para-8 of the report held thus; "8. 13. In Balasaria Construction (P) Ltd. V. Hanuman Seva Trust and others, (2006) 5 SCC 662 , the apex Court in para-8 of the report held thus; "8. After hearing counsel for the parties, going through the plaint, application under Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC and the judgments of the trial court and the High Court, we are of the opinion that the present suit could not be dismissed as barred by limitation without proper pleadings, framing of an issue of limitation and taking of evidence. Question of limitation is a mixed question of law and fact. Ex facie in the present case on the reading of the plaint it cannot be held that the suit is barred by time. The findings recorded by the High Court touching upon the merits of the dispute are set aside but the conclusion arrived at by the High Court is affirmed. We agree with the view taken by the trial court that a plaint cannot be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure." 14. The case in the case of Balasaria Construction (P) Ltd. (supra) is distinguishable on facts. On a cursory perusal of the plaint, it is evident that the suit is barred by limitation. 15. In the wake of the aforesaid, the order dated 26.12.2013 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sambalpur in C.S No.118 of 2010 is quashed. Consequently the plaint is rejected.