Limitation for refund claims turns on specific written acknowledgment; documents on extension or cancellation did not extend time.

A suit for refund of the bid amount was held time-barred under Article 47 of the Limitation Act, 1963 because limitation ran from the date the forest produce was destroyed by fire, and the suit was filed beyond three years. Section 18 did not save the claim because acknowledgment requires a conscious written admission of the specific subsisting liability claimed. Exhibits B-4 and A-8 dealt only with extension of time and cancellation after default; they did not admit any liability to refund the bid amount. The refund claim therefore failed on limitation, and no extension of time arose from the documents.

---

---

Issues: Whether the suit for refund of the bid amount was barred by limitation and whether Exhibits B-4 and A-8 amounted to acknowledgment of liability so as to extend limitation under Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

Analysis: The suit was governed by Article 47 of the Limitation Act, 1963, as it was a claim for money paid upon an existing consideration which afterwards failed. The period began to run from the date of failure, which was the date of the fire that destroyed the forest produce. The suit filed beyond three years from that date was barred unless there was a valid acknowledgment in writing before expiry of limitation. For an acknowledgment under Section 18, the writing must disclose a conscious admission of a present subsisting liability in respect of the right claimed. Exhibits B-4 and A-8 only dealt with extension of time and cancellation of the contract after default; they did not consider or admit a claim for refund of the bid amount. No acknowledgment of the specific liability to refund the bid amount could be inferred from either document.

Conclusion: Exhibits B-4 and A-8 did not constitute acknowledgment of liability, and Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963 was inapplicable. The suit was barred by limitation.

Final Conclusion: The claim for refund failed on limitation, and the decree in favour of the plaintiff could not be sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: An acknowledgment under Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963 must amount to a conscious written admission of the specific present subsisting liability claimed, and a document dealing only with extension, cancellation, or default does not extend limitation.

---