Acknowledgement in writing can save limitation where correspondence shows subsisting liability, even without an express promise to pay.

Letters exchanged between parties can amount to acknowledgement in writing for limitation purposes if they disclose a present debtor-creditor relationship and subsisting liability. A writing need not contain an express promise to pay or specify the exact amount; it is sufficient if it shows that the claim is admitted or dealt with on its merits. The principle is applied liberally, and an acknowledgement may remain effective even when coupled with a refusal to pay or a set-off plea. On that basis, the correspondence was treated as acknowledgement under Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963, and the suit was within limitation.

---

---

Issues: Whether the letters exchanged between the parties amounted to an acknowledgement of liability under Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963 so as to save limitation for the suit.

Analysis: The correspondence disclosed a present and subsisting liability. A letter stating that payment was under consideration and that the amount would be released after clarification, followed by a later letter refusing payment while dealing with the claim on its merits, was treated as sufficient acknowledgement in writing. The governing principle was that acknowledgement need not contain an express promise to pay or specify the exact liability, and it is enough if the writing indicates the existence of a debtor-creditor relationship. Such writings are to be construed liberally, and an acknowledgement may be effective even if coupled with a refusal to pay or a set-off claim.

Conclusion: The letters constituted acknowledgement in writing within Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963, and the suit was within limitation.

---