Mutual account under limitation law requires reciprocal obligations; a running seller-buyer account is governed by the residuary period.

A seller-buyer account is not a mutual, open and current account unless the dealings create reciprocal, independent obligations on both sides; mere supplies by one side and payments by the other do not satisfy Article 1 of the Limitation Act, 1963. For a claim to the balance due on a running, non-mutual account, Article 14 does not apply because it is confined to suits for the price of goods sold and delivered where no fixed credit period is agreed. In the absence of a specific article, the residuary Article 113 governs, and limitation ran from the latest acknowledgment of liability and payment. The appeal failed on limitation and was dismissed with costs.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the account between the parties was a mutual, open and current account attracting Article 1 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963; (ii) whether the suit for recovery of the balance due on a running account was governed by Article 14 or by the residuary Article 113 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963.

Issue (i): whether the account between the parties was a mutual, open and current account attracting Article 1 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963

Analysis: Article 1 applies only where there are reciprocal demands and independent obligations on both sides, showing mutual dealings arising from a dual contractual relationship. A mere seller-buyer relationship, with supplies on one side and payments on the other, does not create mutuality because payments are only discharges of the buyer's liability and do not generate independent demands in favour of the buyer. The account in question disclosed only a single contractual relationship of buyer and seller, though it was open and running.

Conclusion: Article 1 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963 did not apply, and the account was not mutual.

Issue (ii): whether the suit for recovery of the balance due on a running account was governed by Article 14 or by the residuary Article 113 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963

Analysis: Article 14 governs a suit for the price of goods sold and delivered where no fixed period of credit is agreed upon. That provision does not apply where the claim is for balance due on a running, non-mutual account between buyer and seller. Since no specific article covered such a non-mutual running account, the residuary Article 113 applied. On the facts, limitation began to run from the latest relevant acknowledgment of liability and payment, and the suit filed thereafter was within time.

Conclusion: Article 14 did not apply; Article 113 applied, and the suit was within limitation.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed on limitation and the decree in favour of the respondent was sustained, resulting in dismissal of the appeal with costs.

Ratio Decidendi: A seller-buyer account is not a mutual account unless the dealings create reciprocal, independent obligations on both sides; where the account is merely a running non-mutual account for price of goods sold and payments received, Article 1 and Article 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 do not apply and the residuary Article 113 governs.

---