JUDGMENT : P.B. BALAJI, J. Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure to set aside the judgment and decree passed in A.S. No. 80 of 2014 dated 25.01.2016 on the file of the II Additional District Judge Court, Erode confirming the judgment and decree passed in O.S. No. 230 of 2010 dated 19.10.2012 on the file of II Additional Sub Judge Court, Erode and to allow this Second Appeal. 1. The unsuccessful defendant before the trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court is the appellant in the present Second Appeal. 2. The parties are described as per their litigative status before the trial Court. 3. The plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 9,93,742/- together with interest at the rate of 24% per annum. The said claim arises out of business transactions viz. sale of jaggery balls with the plaintiff between 27.08.2006 and 17.08.2007. According to the plaintiff, the defendant was liable to pay a total sum of Rs. 5,91,320/- as on 17.08.2007. However, the defendant issued a cheque for a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- in part payment. The said cheque was dishonoured on presentation for the reason that the payment was stopped by the drawer himself on 06.08.2007. Since the defendant has failed to honor even the part payment of total amount due, the plaintiff has filed the suit for recovering the entire due from the defendant viz. Rs. 5,91,320/- together with interest at the rate of 24% per annum, from 18.08.2007 to 18.06.2010, totalling in all Rs. 9,93,742/- 4. The defendant filed a written statement stating that suit is not filed within the period of limitation and therefore, was liable to be dismissed. However, in the written statement at Paragraph Nos. 9 and 10, the defendant has stated as follows: “9. It is respectfully submitted on behalf of defendant that defendant was in relation with business dealing with the plaintiff from 27.8.2006 to 17.8.2007 but during that period, plaintiff did not supply the quality goods as per order placed by defendant and plaintiff used to supply low quality of goods. That defendant always used to make complaint to plaintiff on phone and plaintiff at that time request the defendant to sell grocery gur as per the running price in the market. 10. That defendant always used to make complaint to plaintiff on phone and plaintiff at that time request the defendant to sell grocery gur as per the running price in the market. 10. It is respectfully submitted on behalf of defendant that at the time of settlement of accounts plaintiff deputed his manager mehetaji munim to defendant's business place at Navagam and that time the accounts were settled in consultations with plaintiff on phone for Rs. 5,91,380/- with plaintiff's mehetaji Mr. P. Murugesan S/o Palaniappa Mudaliya, Resident of 295, Channamuthu Street-3, Erode-638 011, Tamil Nadu State. Defendant at that time not having sufficient fund to pay the above amount. Therefore defendant in consultation with plaintiff agreed to sell defendant's two shops bearing No. 4 & 5 situated at Gokul Nagar, Kholdwad, Kamrej Char Rasta, Tal. Kamrej, District, Surat, Gujarat State for the above mentioned amount and accordingly Sathakhat i.e. Agreement of sale executed by defendant's wife Smt. Kamlaben Laxmilal in favour of plaintiff's mahetaji on necessary Stamp Paper and defendant also signed the same as witness and executant.” 5. The trial Court decreed the suit finding that the suit claim was not barred by limitation. The First Appellate Court also confirmed the findings of the trial Court and dismissed the Appeal preferred by the defendant. 6. As against the concurrent findings rendered by the Courts below, the defendant has preferred the above Second Appeal. On 16.02.2021, the above Second Appeal has been admitted on the following substantial questions of law: “(a) Whether the plaintiff discharged the initial burden of proof cast on him to prove the existence of legally enforceable debt? (b) Whether the plaintiff proved his case as required in Sec.34 of the Evidence Act? (c) Whether the Courts below right in decreeing the suit without perusing the account books namely the Ledger and Day book in a suit on accounts? (d) Whether the suit is filed within the period of limitation?” 7. I have heard Mr. V.S. Kesavan, learned counsel for the defendant/appellant and Mr. M. Guruprasad, learned counsel for the plaintiff/respondent. I have also gone through the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence adduced before the trial Court as well as the judgments of the trial Court and the First Appellate Court having concurrently decreed the suit as prayed for by the plaintiff. 8. V.S. Kesavan, learned counsel for the defendant/appellant and Mr. M. Guruprasad, learned counsel for the plaintiff/respondent. I have also gone through the pleadings, oral and documentary evidence adduced before the trial Court as well as the judgments of the trial Court and the First Appellate Court having concurrently decreed the suit as prayed for by the plaintiff. 8. The learned counsel for the appellant would state that the plaintiff has not produced certified statement of accounts and no auditor was also examined. Admittedly, the claim arose only pursuant to the cheque for Rs. 1,00,000/- being dishonored. Therefore, when the plaintiff sought for recovery of money based on accounts viz. business transactions between the period 27.08.2006 and 17.08.2007, the plaintiff, according to the learned counsel for the appellant, ought to have established his case as required under Section 34 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. 9. Further, according to the learned counsel for the appellant, the plaintiff did not chose to file day book or ledger in connection with the suit claim. He would also state that the suit was filed only on 27.07.2010, whereas, the last invoice was dated 11.03.2007 and the plaintiff has failed to prove that the transactions between the plaintiff and the defendant were running upto 17.08.2007. He would therefore, pray for the Second Appeal being allowed. 10. The learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance on the decisions of this Court: (i) Madras Cements Limited, Rep. by its Assistant Manager (Legal) vs. T.M.T. Kannammal Educational Trust, Rep. by its Chairman, 2015 (1) MWN (Civil) 278 (ii) M/s. Mano Auto Spares, Represented by its Proprietor vs. M/s. Associated Electrical Agencies Represented by its Power of Attorney Agent, (2017) SCC Online Mad 23875 (iii) S. Manimozhi vs. M/s. Baxter India Limited and Others in A.S. No. 79 of 2015 dated 21.01.2024 11. In Madras Cements Limited case, referred herein supra, this Court has held that when a suit for recovery of money was based on running accounts, the plaintiff has to prove the entries in the account books by examination of the author of the entries. In Mano Auto Spares's case, referred herein supra, this Court has held that even if the plea of limitation had not been raised in the written statement, the Court can still exercise the power under Section 3 of the Limitation Act, to see whether the suit is in time or time barred. In Mano Auto Spares's case, referred herein supra, this Court has held that even if the plea of limitation had not been raised in the written statement, the Court can still exercise the power under Section 3 of the Limitation Act, to see whether the suit is in time or time barred. 12. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff would invite my attention to the specific paragraphs which have already extracted above in the written statement and contend that when it has been admitted by the defendant himself in the written statement, the same was not required to be proved by the plaintiff and therefore, the Courts below were right in holding that the suit claim was liable to be met by the defendant. Insofar as the plea of limitation, the learned counsel for the respondent would submit that though in the written statement, a casual averment has been mentioned that the suit is not within the prescribed period of limitation, the Courts below have elaborately dealt with the issue of plea of limitation and found the suit to have been filed in time. 13. I have carefully considered the rival submissions advanced by the learned counsel on either side. 14. In view of the admission made by the appellant in Paragraph Nos. 9 and 10, of the written statement, he categorically affirms the claim of the plaintiff between two dates viz. 27.08.2006 and 17.08.2007 and after settlement of accounts, the total amount due was Rs. 5,91,380/- (though the plaintiff claimed a sum of Rs. 5,90,320/-). The defendant also admits issuance of cheque for Rs. 1,00,000/- and therefore, the defendant has admitted that the last transaction was on 17.09.2007 and in part payment, the cheque was issued for a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- as the defendant had to sell his properties to settle the claim of the plaintiff. The suit having been filed on 27.07.2010, is certainly within three years and cannot be said to be barred by limitation. But for the plea of limitation, no other question remains for determination in the Second Appeal, in view of the specific admission of the defendant to the claim of the plaintiff. 15. The suit having been filed on 27.07.2010, is certainly within three years and cannot be said to be barred by limitation. But for the plea of limitation, no other question remains for determination in the Second Appeal, in view of the specific admission of the defendant to the claim of the plaintiff. 15. Insofar as the judgment of this Court in Madras Cements Limited case, referred herein supra, there the liability was denied by the defendant and in such circumstances, this Court held that the plaintiff had to produce invoices and accounts and also examine the author of the entries to substantiate the suit claim. Therefore, the said decision is of no avail to the appellant in the present case. In Mano Auto Spares's case, referred herein supra, the plea was with regard to the limitation and here the Courts below have adverted their minds to the plea of limitation raised by the defendant and found the suit to having been filed in time. The well merited findings of the Courts below does not require any interference. Insofar as the decision of this Court in S. Manimozhi's case, referred herein supra, this Court has held that the requirements of producing original books was necessitated as the liability was denied by the defendant. Here it is not so, as in the written statement, the defendant has categorically admitted to his liability to the tune of Rs. 5,91,380/- which is actually 60 Rupees higher than the claim of the plaintiff. 16. In such circumstances, I do not find any of the substantial questions of law framed by this Court arising for consideration in the present Second Appeal, in view of the categorical admissions made by the defendant even in the written statement. 17. In fine, the Second Appeal is dismissed. The Judgment and Decree of the Courts below are hereby confirmed. Consequently connected Miscellaneous Petition is also dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.