Mutual account test denied where overdraft dealings lacked reciprocal obligations, leaving the claim time-barred under ordinary limitation.

A mutual, open and current account requires reciprocal dealings creating independent obligations on both sides; a loan or overdraft account where one party merely advances money and the other makes only isolated payments does not satisfy that test. On the facts described, the defendants' two small payments, both credited towards interest, did not create mutuality, so the special limitation rule for mutual accounts was inapplicable. The claim for the excess unsecured advance was therefore governed by the ordinary limitation rule and was treated as time-barred under Article 57, with the money decree for that amount unable to stand.

---

---

Issues: Whether the plaintiff bank's claim for the excess amount advanced beyond the secured overdraft limit was governed by Article 85 of the Limitation Act as relating to a mutual, open and current account, or by Article 57 of the Limitation Act so that it was barred by limitation.

Analysis: A mutual account requires reciprocal dealings creating independent obligations on both sides. The account here was essentially a loan or overdraft account: the bank advanced money, while the defendants made only two small payments, both credited towards interest. Such payments did not create mutuality of dealings. The account therefore did not answer the description of a mutual, open and current account, and the special limitation rule in Article 85 was inapplicable. The claim for the unsecured excess advance had to be treated as falling under the ordinary limitation rule.

Conclusion: Article 85 did not apply. The claim for Rs. 5025-15-9 was barred by limitation under Article 57, and the money decree for that amount could not stand in favour of the respondent.

---