Written acknowledgment and part payment can save limitation; formal defects in liquidation applications do not defeat authority-based claims.

A written acknowledgment of liability can save limitation even if the document is relied on only for a collateral purpose, and part payment may extend time where supported by the evidence. A debtor's acknowledgment need not state the exact amount due, so long as it is a signed written admission of liability. A formal defect in an application for a payment order does not invalidate the proceeding where authority to act is otherwise established. Presentment of a promissory note is not an absolute bar to liability where the note was in fact presented or where the negotiable instruments rules dispense with presentment in the circumstances.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the application for a payment order was incompetent because it was presented by the liquidator's authorised manager; (ii) whether the claim was barred by limitation or saved by acknowledgment and part payment; and (iii) whether presentment of the promissory note was necessary before the maker could be held liable.

Issue (i): whether the application for a payment order was incompetent because it was presented by the liquidator's authorised manager.

Analysis: The liquidation company had been appointed liquidator and had accepted that position. A resolution of its directors authorised Daulat Ram to manage the liquidation work, act on behalf of the bank, and sign documents connected with the proceedings. The defect that he did not state in the application the precise capacity in which he signed was treated as merely formal, and his authority was sufficiently established by the subsequent material.

Conclusion: The application was competent and the objection failed.

Issue (ii): whether the claim was barred by limitation or saved by acknowledgment and part payment.

Analysis: The document executed by the debtor was used not to prove title to immovable property but as evidence of acknowledgment of liability under the promissory note and of part payment. Such use was treated as collateral and therefore admissible. It was held that an acknowledgment need not state the exact amount due, provided it is a written acknowledgment of liability signed by the debtor. The credit of Rs. 16,000 was accepted as a payment relevant to the debt, and limitation was extended accordingly.

Conclusion: The debt was not time-barred and the objection failed.

Issue (iii): whether presentment of the promissory note was necessary before the maker could be held liable.

Analysis: The evidence supported a finding that the note had in fact been presented for payment. In any event, the note was payable on demand and the circumstances brought the case within the rule dispensing with presentment where the maker has already made payment or where presentment is otherwise unnecessary under the negotiable instruments law.

Conclusion: Presentment was not a bar to liability and the objection failed.

Final Conclusion: The appeal was devoid of merit, and the payment order was upheld.

Ratio Decidendi: A written acknowledgment of liability and proof of part payment can save limitation even where the document is relied on only for a collateral purpose, and a formal defect in the presentation of a liquidation application does not invalidate it where authority is otherwise established.

---