AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
6 paragraphs · 105 words
Reilly, J.—The only question argued for petitioner is whether the payment shown by the endorsement, Ex. A-21, saves limitation. The very
amount of that payment, Rs. 900 is clear indication that part of it was towards interest as the original principal was only Rs. 800. The evidence
shows that P.W. No. 1 who made the payment was defendant''s agent duly authorised to make the payment. There does not appear to be
anything in the suggestion that P.W. No. 1 did not follow the exact authority given to him by defendant in the matter. The payment clearly saves
limitation.
3.
The petition is dismissed with costs.