performance of one act alone without the other act will not save the limitation. In so far this case is concerned, when there is no acknowledgement on the part of the defendant in any manner to the suit claim, it is found that the mere payment by itself would not save the limitation for the plaintiff's litigation. As rightly determined by the first appellate Court, unless there is an acknowledgement in the requisite form, the payment by itself is of no avail and in such view of the matter, when it is found that the plaintiff's suit is not established to have been laid within the time as per the conditions stipulated under Section 19 of the Limitation Act, the mere issuance of a cheque by the defendant on 06.09.1984 for a sum of Rs.2,000/- could not be treated as an acknowledgement of liability, it is seen that the first appellate Court has rightly held that the suit claim of the plaintiff is barred by time. The contention putforth by the plaintiff's counsel that the execution of the cheque by the defendant in his own handwriting would amount to an acknowledgement of the liability as contemplated under Section 19 of the Limitation Act, as such, cannot be accepted, as the issuance of the cheque can only be taken as payment made by the defendant without any acknowledgement of liability and when the said payment has to be subsequently acknowledged by the defendant as adumbrated by the Apex Court, in the above said decision, in the required form, it is seen that as rightly found by the first appellate Court, the suit claim is not in time.
