1. This Revision Application under section 115, C.P.C. Is directed against the Judgment and Decree dated 28-5-1992 and 4-6-1992 passed by the learned District Judge, Sukkur in Civil Appeal No,24 of 1992. The sole grievance of the petitioners is that the learned District Judge misdirected in setting aside the order of the trial Court on the point of limitation. It is contended that the learned District Judge fell in error in holding that by virtue of the provisions contained in section 19 of the Limitation Act, the suit was not barred by time. The revision application was admitted to consider this single point. I have heard Mr.Saifuddin Shah learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.Muhammad Shamim Khan learned counsel for the respondents Nos.2 and 3. None present for the respondent No, 1 . Briefly stated the relevant facts are that one Chandoo Mal brother of the respondent No,1 was insured by the petitioners. The Life Insurance Policy was issued by them. Late Chandoo Mal expired on 22-2-1983 and the respondent No,2, preferred claim on the basis of Life Insurance Policy, because late Chandoo Mal was employee of the United Bank Limited and the policy was assigned to the respondent No,2, who used to pay the premium. The petitioners vide their letter dated 24-3- 1985 refused to pay the claim for the reason that the insured namely Chandoo Mal had made untrue statement in respect of his health condition with the result that the contract of Insurance became null and void. The respondent No,1, the brother of late Chandoo Mal and the respondent No,2 persisted in their claim and the petitioners reiterated their earlier contention vide letter dated 13-11-1985. The respondents however continued the correspondence and the petitioner finally refused to pay the claim vide their letter dated 29-4-1986. Ultimately the suit for recovery of the claim was filed on 22-12-1988. A plea was taken by the petitioners before the trial Court that under Article 86 of the First Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1908 the period of limitation was three years which was to be computed from the date of death of the insured and consequently the suit was barred by time. The trial Court accepted the contention and held that the suit was barred by time, which was dismissed accordingly. The respondent No,1, preferred appeal and the learned District Judge vide impugned judgment set aside the finding of the trial Court for the reason that the trial Court did not advert to the provision contained in section 19 of the Limitation Act which provides that if any acknowledgment is made before the expiry of the period of limitation, a fresh period of limitation shall be computed from the time the acknowledgment was signed. The learned District Judge held that the petitioners acknowledged their liability impliedly through their letter of refusal dated 29-4- 1986 and the suit was filed on 22-12-1988 which was within the period of three years as provided in Article 86 of the First Schedule to the Limitation Act, with the result that the suit was not barred by time. The learned District Judge placed reliance in this behalf on a single Bench Judgment of this Court in the case of State Life Insurance Corporation of Pakistan v. Kausar Jehan 1982 CLC 1658. The learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the learned District Judge has not correctly appreciated the facts and law. According to him the petitioners refused to pay the claim vide their letter dated 24-3-1985 and subsequent letters are mere repetition of their refusal which shall not give a fresh cause of action to the respondents. On the other hand, Mr.Muhammad Shamim Khan learned counsel for the respondents Nos.2 and 3 has supported the view of learned District Judge. He has submitted that the point in issue stands decided by this Court vide judgment referred to above. The above cited judgment has been followed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court in the case of State Life Insurance Corporation of Pakistan v. Mst. Safia Begum 2001 CLC 408.
2. I have carefully considered the contentions raised before me and the two rulings on which reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the respondents Nos.2 and 3. I am not persuaded to agree with the contention of Mr. Saifuddin Shah learned counsel for the petitioners that a fresh period of limitation shall start running from the date of first letter dated 24-3-1985 only and the subsequent acknowledgments shall not have the effect of giving fresh period of limitation to the respondents. Section 19 of the Limitation Act, 1908 does not provide that a fresh period of limitation shall be computed for once only from the date of acknowledgment of liability. I am of the considered opinion that each time a liability is admitted directly or indirectly, expressly or impliedly, overtly or implicitly it will have the effect of giving a fresh period of limitation in respect of the liabilities so admitted. The facts as stated before me show that late Chandoo Mal died on 22-2- 1983 and the period of 3 years prescribed in Article 86 would have expired on 23-1-1986 but before the expiry of said period, the petitioners acknowledged the liability vide their letter of refusal dated 24-3-1985. This period of limitation was to expire on 25-3-1988 but prior to that, another acknowledgment was made through the letter of refusal dated 13-11-1985. A fresh period of limitation then started running from this date which was to expire on 14-11-1988. Again before the expiry of this period of limitation, the petitioners acknowledged the liability through their letter or refusal dated 29-4-1986, with the result that yet fresh period of limitation commenced from the date of further acknowledgement which was to expire on 30-4-1989. However, on 22-12-1988 the respondent No,2 filed suit with the result that it was within the period of limitation. I respectfully agree with the view held by a learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of State Life Insurance Corporation of Pakistan v. Kausar Jehan .1982 CLC 1658 and followed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court in the case of State Life Insurance of Pakistan v. Mst. Safia Begum 2001 CLC 408.
3. The impugned finding of the learned District Judge, Sukkur is in consonance with the Single Bench Judgment of this Court on which he has placed reliance. The learned District Judge has interpreted the law in accordance with the law as laid down by this Court and consequently no interference is required in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. Consequently the Revision Application stands dismissed.