Evidence Admitted but Not Admitted as Fact

Arjun files a complaint against Rohan accusing him of stealing ₹10,000 from his locker. In the court, Arjun produces Rohan's letter (Exhibit A) in which Rohan had written that he borrowed ₹10,000 from a third person, but Arjun misinterprets it as an admission of theft. The court admits Exhibit A as evidence, but rejects it as fact, stating it is a borrowing transaction.

Now the scenario - the third person, who is not a party to the case, has a valid defense of "Limitation" as per Limitation Act, 1963. They claim that the borrowing happened a year ago and now the legal remedy has lapsed.

What is the legal remedy applicable in this situation?