JUDGMENT : H.P. Sandesh, J. This appeal is filed challenging the judgment and decree dated 04.02.2011 passed in O.S.No.7837/2002 on the file of XXVII Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore. 2. The factual matrix of the case is that, the plaintiff M/s. SNR Handloom Silk Enterprises which is a proprietorship concern has filed the suit against the defendant, Karnataka Small Industries Marketing Corporation Limited ('KSIMCL' for short) for recovery of sum of Rs.7,38,091/- together with current and future interest at the rate of 16% per annum from the date of suit till realization. 3. The main contention of the plaintiff is that the plaintiff is a small scale industry engaged in production and sale of cloth having its factory in Chelur, Gubbi Taluk and Head Office at No.150, II Stage, Okalipuram, Bangalore. The defendant herein is a Government of Karnataka Undertaking registered under the Companies Act, 1956. The main object of the company is to promote marketing the goods produced by Small Scale Industries of the State of Karnataka. It is the specific contention of the plaintiff that the defendant placed the orders for supply of cloth/textiles worth Rs.17,53,297.50/-. The plaintiff supplied the materials as per the terms of the purchase order and raised an invoice for a sum of Rs.17,53,297.50/- being the value of the material supplied to the defendant. Thereafter, defendant received the material worth Rs.17,53,297.50/- and made part payment withholding a sum of Rs.5,43,329/-. On 14.11.1995, the plaintiff wrote a letter to the defendant seeking release of the balance amount immediately and thereafter on 30.12.1997, the defendant released a further sum of Rs.2,00,000/-. Subsequent to the same, plaintiff addressed several letters to the defendant on 24.06.1996, 07.01.1998 and 11.09.2000 requesting for release of entire balance amount of Rs.3,43,329/-. However, the defendant did not make any payment. Ultimately, the defendant addressed a letter dated 16.11.2000 to the Secretary, Government of Karnataka, Commerce and Industries Department stating that entire payments from the Corporation in respect of the supplies made by the plaintiff to the Bangalore City Corporation as per the purchase order placed by the defendant have been received. However, without there being any legal right or authority, the defendant sought to justify nonpayment of the amount on the ground that some amount is due from M/s. Venkateshwara Enterprises and M/s.Lakshmi Marketing Corporation which are stated to the sister concerns of the plaintiff. However, without there being any legal right or authority, the defendant sought to justify nonpayment of the amount on the ground that some amount is due from M/s. Venkateshwara Enterprises and M/s.Lakshmi Marketing Corporation which are stated to the sister concerns of the plaintiff. The plaintiff immediately approached the defendant and clarified the position that defendant had nothing to do with the other establishments, except M/s. Venkateshwara Enterprises, for which the plaintiff is the proprietor. It is further contended that the proprietor of the plaintiff is not a partner in these establishments and hence, the defendant was not justified in withholding the amount due to it. In that regard, when the defendant failed to pay the amount, legal notice was issued and reply was given admitting the balance and an untenable defence was taken and hence, the suit is filed for recovery of the amount. 4. The defendant in the written statement contended that the proprietor of the plaintiff also represents M/s. Lakshmi Marketing Corporation, which is the sister concern of M/s. SNR Handloom Silk Industries which had transaction with the defendant. In respect of transactions made under the hire purchase scheme by M/s. Lakshmi Marketing Corporation with M/s. Bangalore City Corporation, Bangalore, certain amounts were due to the defendant on behalf of M/s. Lakshmi Marketing Corporation by M/s. Bangalore City Corporation. A sum of Rs.3,43,329/- is being held up in M/s. Bangalore City Corporation to the defendant to be paid on behalf of M/s. Lakshmi Marketing Corporation. Though the defendant has received the payment for the supplies made by M/s. Lakshmi Marketing Corporation, the defendant has not released the payment for the supplies made by the plaintiff. It is further contended that the general practice in trade and business is that any amount due from a particular unit can be recovered from its sister concern, in case there is default as such. In this case, the corporation has adjusted the dues from M/s. SNR Handloom Silk Industries to one of M/s. Lakshmi Marketing Corporation under hire purchase scheme transactions. 5. The Court below, after considering the plaint averments and material available on record, framed the following issues for consideration "1. Whether the defendant proves that M/s. Lakshmi Marketing Corporation is a sister-concern of the plaintiff firm and it was represented by Shri. S. Nagaraja the proprietor of the plaintiff firm? 2. 5. The Court below, after considering the plaint averments and material available on record, framed the following issues for consideration "1. Whether the defendant proves that M/s. Lakshmi Marketing Corporation is a sister-concern of the plaintiff firm and it was represented by Shri. S. Nagaraja the proprietor of the plaintiff firm? 2. Does it prove that said M/s. Lakshmi Marketing Corporation was due certain amounts to it? 3. Whether the defendant is justified in withholding Rs.3,43,329/-? 4. Whether the suit is within the period of limitation? 5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree for Rs.7,38,091/-? 6. What decree or order?" 6. The plaintiff, in order to prove its case, examined the witness P.W.1 and relied upon the documents at Exs-P1 to P13. On the other hand, the defendant examined the witness as D.W.1 and relied upon the documents at Exs-D1 to D26. The Court below, after recording the evidence and hearing the arguments of both the parties has decreed the suit with cost and held that defendant is liable to pay Rs.7,38,091/- along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum on Rs.3,43,329/- from the date of suit till realization. Being aggrieved by the same, the appellant, who is the defendant has preferred this appeal. 7. In the present appeal, the appellant would contend that the Court below has committed an error in decreeing the suit. He also contends that the Court below has erred in answering issue No.4 as 'affirmative' by coming to the conclusion that the suit is within limitation, even though the same is barred by limitation. The appellant further contends that the suit for recovery of the price of goods sold is governed by Article 14 of the Limitation Act, where under, the cut off date for starting the period of limitation is the date of purchase or delivery of goods by the plaintiff. In this case, the date of supply of goods by the plaintiff was admittedly on 02.01.1995 and the suit for recovery of the price was filed by the plaintiff on 20.11.2002 beyond the period prescribed under Article 14 of the Limitation Act. Therefore, it is the contention of the appellant that the very finding of the trial Judge that the suit is within time is erroneous. 8. Therefore, it is the contention of the appellant that the very finding of the trial Judge that the suit is within time is erroneous. 8. The other contention of the appellant that to claim exemption under Section 19 of the Limitation Act, the plaintiff must specifically allege and prove not only payment of part of the amount due, but also that such payment has been acknowledged in writing in the manner as contemplated under Section 19 of the Limitation Act. Mere allegation of payment would not satisfy the requirement of Section 19 of the Act and hence, the suit is liable to be dismissed on the ground of limitation. It is the specific stand of the appellant that money had been withheld by it since the sister concern of the plaintiff namely, M/s. Lakshmi Textiles owned money to the appellant and such as is permissible in business dealings to withhold the same. Unfortunately this aspect of the matter has not been properly appreciated by the trial Court. The trial Judge failed to take note of the fact that Sri Nagaraja was a common person in both the concerns and therefore, the trial Court has erred in decreeing the suit of the plaintiff and the very finding of the trial Judge that the plaintiff has proved the case is erroneous. The other ground that the trial Court was no right in awarding the interest at the rate of 12% per annum and that too from the date of suit till realization. The rate of interest awarded by the Court besides being excessive is improper and incorrect and prayed to set aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court. 9. The counsel appearing for the appellant in his argument has contended that the very suit itself is not maintainable and cause of action has arisen in the year 1995 and invoice raised is also of the year 1995. Part payment was made in the year 1995 and last payment was made on 13.12.1997 and in spite of the suit is barred by limitation, the Court below, erroneously answered issued No.4 in favor of the plaintiff regarding limitation and the same is liable to be set aside. The other contention of the appellant counsel that the very reasoning given by the trial Judge is erroneous in respect of the limitation is concerned. The other contention of the appellant counsel that the very reasoning given by the trial Judge is erroneous in respect of the limitation is concerned. In support of his contention, the counsel has also relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.3960/2019 and regarding Para Nos.6.3 and 6.4, the appellant counsel would contend that the trial Judge has committed an error and the Hon'ble Apex Court in this judgment specifically held that not exercising the powers under Order 7, Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, since there was no any cause of action, ought to have dismissed the suit as not maintainable and the case on hand, there was no cause of action and hence, prays this Court to dismiss the appeal. 10. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant vehemently contended that on merits also, the Court did not appreciate the evidence in a proper perspective and committed an error in decreeing the suit and also the interest awarded is on higher side and hence, judgment of the Lower Court is liable to be set aside. 11. The learned Counsel appearing for the respondent in his argument vehemently contends that there is no dispute with regard to the transaction is concerned and in terms of Ex-D3, the defendant has received the amount to the tune of Rs.17,53,293/- and out of the amount, he withheld the amount of Rs.5,43,329/- in terms of Ex-P5 and in spite of the plaintiff requested to release the amount, did not release the balance amount. However, paid the amount of Rs.2,00,000/- on 30.12.1997 and did not pay the remaining amount of Rs.3,43,327/-. However, the defendant wrote a letter on 16.11.2000 admitting the liability to repay the amount of Rs.5,43,329/- and hence, the suit is within time and the said fact has been appreciated by the trial Court while appreciating the case of the plaintiff and given the reason, considered the contents of Ex-P8 and rightly decreed the suit. However, the defendant wrote a letter on 16.11.2000 admitting the liability to repay the amount of Rs.5,43,329/- and hence, the suit is within time and the said fact has been appreciated by the trial Court while appreciating the case of the plaintiff and given the reason, considered the contents of Ex-P8 and rightly decreed the suit. The counsel also would contend that the trial Judge while giving the finding in respect of the claim is concerned has given the reasons that the defendant cannot withhold the money on the ground that there was no any privity of contract between the plaintiff and the defendant in respect of the transaction of sister concern and hence, the defendant cannot withhold the money in the transaction and hence, there is no grounds to interfere with the judgment of the trial Court. 12. Having heard the arguments of appellant counsel and also the respondent counsel, the points that arise for my consideration is: i. Whether the Court below has committed an error in answering the issue No.4 in favour of the plaintiff/respondent that suit is in time. ii. Whether the Court below has committed an error in passing the decree in favour of the plaintiff/respondent rejecting the claim of the defendant and not adjusting the amount which is due from the sister concern of the plaintiff. Point No.1 13. The main contention of the appellant before this Court is that the very suit itself is not maintainable since the cause of action was arisen in the year 1995 and the last payment was made on 30.12.1997 and the suit was filed in the year 2002 and the very finding of the trial Judge, the suit is filed within time is erroneous. The learned counsel for respondent, in his arguments, vehemently contended that the defendant wrote a letter admitting the liability to repay the amount of Rs.5,43,329/- vide letter dated 16.11.2000 - Ex.P.8 and once he acknowledges the liability by writing the letter to the plaintiff, now he cannot contend that the suit is barred by limitation. 14. In keeping the contention of both appellant's counsel and respondent's counsel and on perusal of the records, there is no dispute with regard to the fact that the transaction was taken place in the year 1995 and also no dispute with regard to the fact that the part payment was made on 08.09.1995. 14. In keeping the contention of both appellant's counsel and respondent's counsel and on perusal of the records, there is no dispute with regard to the fact that the transaction was taken place in the year 1995 and also no dispute with regard to the fact that the part payment was made on 08.09.1995. Apart from that, there is no dispute with regard to the last payment was made on 31.12.1997. The dispute is only with regard to Ex.P.8. The appellant/defendant did not dispute the writing of the letter - Ex.P.8. It is only contended that the said letter would not amounts to an acknowledgement of debt. On perusal of Ex.P.8, it is mentioned that the balance amounts of Rs.4,36,208/- and Rs.5,43,329/- were withheld by the Corporation in respect of Messrs.Padma Textiles and Messrs.SNR Handloom respectively. However, as the recoveries under hire purchase scheme, a sum of Rs.2,99,070/- and Rs.2,00,000/- were released to M/s.Padma Textiles and M/s.SNR Handloom Enterprises respectively. This letter shows that there is an admission with regard to the payment of Rs.2,00,000/- in respect of this transaction and further, the contents discloses that as on the date 16.11.2000, categorically admits that an amount of Rs.3,43,239/- due to release to the said units. But, reason given is that the said amount has been withheld due to non receipt of the hire purchase. These transactions made through Messrs.Venkateswara Enterprises and Messrs.Lakshmi Marketing Corporation for having taken note of the contents of Ex.P.8 dated 16.11.2000. There is a categorical admission with regard to dues. I would like to refer Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963 regarding effecting of acknowledgement in writing and Section 18 says that; where before the expiration of the prescribed period for a suit or application in respect of any property or right, an acknowledgment 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 acknowledgment was so signed. On reading of the very proviso of Section 18, it is clear that in view of the acknowledgment made a fresh period of limitation shall be computed from the time when the acknowledgment was so signed and the defendant did not dispute the Ex.P.8 and when such being the case, the very contention of learned counsel for appellant that the Court below has committed an error in answering issue with regard to the limitation in favour of the plaintiff is erroneous cannot be accepted and hence, I answered point No.1 as Negative. 15. The other contention of the defendant in the written statement as well as in the evidence that there was a due from the sister concern of the plaintiff and hence, the payment of due, which was withheld. When the plaintiff was due, the amount from its sister concern, the plaintiff is not entitled for the said amount. On perusal of the evidence of P.W.1, in this regard, admits the defendant's Corporation has withheld the payment on the ground that Messrs.Lakshmi Marketing Corporation who is the sister concern of the plaintiff. The P.W.1 has denied that the defendant is not liable to pay the interest on the due amount as claimed in the plaint. P.W.1 also denied that the plaintiff and Messrs.Lakshmi Marketing Corporation and its sister concern and further denied that Messrs.Lakshmi Marketing Corporation had transaction with Mahanagara Palike, Bengaluru through the defendant. The plaintiff, in the cross-examination, has denied the very contention raised by the defendant during the course of the cross-examination and on perusal of the evidence of D.W.1 regarding this aspect in para No.7, he reiterates that S.Nagaraj is the Partner in the said Firm. In the cross-examination of D.W.1, the suggestion was made that Ex.D.11 does not pertain to Messrs.Lakshmi Marketing Corporation. But, it belongs to Messrs.Lakshmi Marketing Association and further, he admits that he does not know, whether the copy of the registration of the firm in respect of the said Messrs.Lakshmi Marketing Corporation is available with their office or not? It is further suggested that the said document is produced, which indicates the name of the person who is dealing with the business and therefore, defendant's corporation has withheld the said document and has not produced the same with this case. But, he claimed that the said Messrs.Lakshmi Marketing Corporation and Messrs.Venkateshwara Enterprises have entered into transaction with the defendant's Corporation. But, he claimed that the said Messrs.Lakshmi Marketing Corporation and Messrs.Venkateshwara Enterprises have entered into transaction with the defendant's Corporation. He also admits that they have already issued notice to Messrs.Lakshmi Marketing Corporation and Messrs.Venkateshwara Enterprises calling upon to pay the dues. Till date, there is no recovery of money as requested by the corporation. 16. Having considered the evidence of P.W.1 and D.W.1 and also the document Ex.P.8, it is clear that the defendant is in due to the said amount claimed in the suit and withholding of the said amount contending that sister's concerned of the plaintiff is due in favour of the defendant cannot be a ground. It is admitted that they have already issued notice against Messrs.Lakshmi Marketing Corporation and the same is an independent cause of action for non-payment of the amount by the said firm and the same cannot be mixed with this transaction and the document clearly discloses that the defendant is in due in respect of the amount claimed and the trial Judge also while giving the finding, discussed this aspect in the judgment while answering issue Nos.2 and 3. The trial Judge while considering the evidence available on record has given the reasoning that in para No.20 that the Court has to examine, whether there exists privity of contract between the plaintiff and other concerned and the same is not made clear by the defendant and further observed that at least, these documents so marked in the case may prove with regard to the illusion of departmental enquiry against the official by name S. Nagaraj and others. Further observed that they may prove that Messrs.Lakshmi Marketing Corporation and Messrs.Venkateshwara Enterprises are also dealing with the defendant and materials supplied and correspondences discloses the transaction and those documents never help the case of the defendant to prove his defence that there exists a privity of contract between the plaintiff and other concerns. The Court also has observed that the defendant has set up a quite contradictory defence during the course of evidence as well as arguments. The very defence that amount has been withheld which was due to the plaintiff cannot be accepted and defendant can recover amount from the said concern and cannot withheld the amount or otherwise to seek for an order to set up a claim. The very defence that amount has been withheld which was due to the plaintiff cannot be accepted and defendant can recover amount from the said concern and cannot withheld the amount or otherwise to seek for an order to set up a claim. Here, in the case on hand, it has to be noted that the plaintiff and other alleged sister's concerned are different and transactions are different and the same cannot be made as cause of action in these proceedings to recover the dues which are from the other concerned and the said aspect also whether sister concern of the plaintiff is liable to pay cannot be decided in this suit and hence, from withholding of the amount taking such defence in the written statement cannot be availed to the defendant and hence, I do not find any reason to interfere with the findings of the trial Court in coming to a conclusion that the defendant fails to prove issue Nos.2 and 3 and rightly trial Judge has answered issue No.1 and issue No.5 in favour of the plaintiff and hence, I do not find any merit in the appeal to come to a other conclusion that the Court below has committed an error in decreeing the suit. In view of the above discussions, I pass the following; ORDER The appeal is dismissed. No cost.