Acknowledgment of liability requires a clear written admission; filing an amended insolvency copy was only procedural and did not extend limitation.

A written acknowledgment under the Limitation Act requires a clear admission of a present subsisting liability and an intention to recognise the debtor-creditor relationship. Filing a neat amended copy of an insolvency petition after addition of a party was held to be a procedural step only; it did not amount to a fresh petition or a new admission of debt. The mere addition of a creditor did not transform the amended filing into an acknowledgment of liability or extend limitation. Accordingly, the amended copy was not an acknowledgment under Section 18, and the suits remained time-barred.

---

---

Issues: Whether the filing of a corrected or amended copy of the insolvency petition, after addition of a party, amounted to an acknowledgment of liability so as to extend limitation.

Analysis: An acknowledgment under the Limitation Act must be a clear written admission of a present subsisting liability and must evince an intention to admit the jural relationship of debtor and creditor. The filing of a neat amended copy in the insolvency proceedings, necessitated only because of the addition of a creditor, did not constitute a fresh petition or a fresh admission of liability. The act was merely procedural and did not show any intention to acknowledge the debts of the plaintiffs. The effect of adding a party under the Limitation Act did not convert the filing of the amended copy into a new acknowledgment.

Conclusion: The filing of the amended copy did not amount to an acknowledgment under Section 18 of the Limitation Act, and the suits were barred by limitation.

---