Limitation and conditional promise: a signed acknowledgment extended time, but a contingent repayment note could not revive a time-barred debt.

Ex.A.1 was treated as a written acknowledgment signed within the original limitation period, so it attracted a fresh period of limitation under Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Ex.A.3 was conditional, because repayment was promised only after receipt of money from the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board, and therefore it did not satisfy the requirement of an express, written, signed and unconditional promise under Section 25(3) of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. The first appellate court had misconstrued both documents, giving rise to a substantial question of law in second appeal. The decree was unsustainable because the suit was still filed beyond the fresh limitation period.

---

---

Issues: Whether Exs.A.1 and A.3 saved limitation or created an enforceable promise so as to sustain the decree in the respondent's favour.

Analysis: Ex.A.1 was treated as an acknowledgment in writing signed by the appellant, and it was within the original period of limitation, thereby attracting a fresh period under Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963. However, Ex.A.3 merely stated that repayment would be made after receipt of money from the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and was therefore conditional. A promise under Section 25(3) of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 must be express, written, signed, and unconditional. Since Ex.A.3 depended on a future contingency, it could not be treated as an unconditional promise to pay a time-barred debt. The first appellate court had misconstrued the documents, which gave rise to a substantial question of law warranting interference in second appeal.

Conclusion: Ex.A.3 did not constitute an enforceable promise under Section 25(3) of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, but Ex.A.1 did not ultimately save the suit because the suit was filed beyond the fresh limitation period. The decree of the first appellate court was unsustainable.

---