JUDGMENT

P. Sathasivam, J.

1) Leave granted.

2) This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 18.10.2007 passed by the High Court of Jammu & Kashmir at Jammu in Civil Revision No. 177 of 2005 whereby the High Court dismissed the revision filed by the Dharmarth Trust (hereinafter referred to as "the Trust")-appellants herein.

3) Brief facts:

(a) The Respondent, a qualified, registered and licensed Architect, is engaged in his professional business in the name of M/s Nanda Designers Consortium having its office at 60 Purani Mandi, Jammu. On 19.10.1992, he was engaged by the Trust for the purpose of providing professional consultancy services as an architect for various projects at different sites in Jammu. As per the terms of the said contract, a fee of 2.5% of the total project cost was fixed for providing such services.

(b) On 14.12.1993, the appellants-Trust telephonically communicated the respondent not to work further for their projects and terminated his services as an Architect. A formal communication was also served on 16.01.1994 regarding the termination of his services.

(c) On 16.10.1996, the Respondent served a legal notice to the Trust claiming compensation amounting to Rs. 38,77,263.75 towards professional charges including interest thereon for various projects. After not getting any reply from the Trust, after a gap of four years, on 29.01.1998, a suit was filed by the Respondent in the Court of the Ist Additional District Judge, Jammu, claiming an amount of Rs, 43,30,797/-. During the pendency of the suit, on 08.02.1999, the Respondent filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure for amendment in the Plaint. On 22.09.1999, the Trust filed their reply objecting to the maintainability of the application. By order dated 08.10.1999, the trial Court allowed the application. Challenging the said order, the Trust filed Civil Revision No. 162 of 1999 before the High Court praying that the trial Court had committed an error in law by allowing the amendment in the plaint without addressing the legal issue regarding its maintainability. The High Court, vide order dated 19.07.2001, disposed of the civil revision petition filed by the Trust and remanded the matter back to the trial Court to address the legal issue regarding maintainability/limitation. Thereafter, on 27.09.2005, Ist Additional District Judge framed the issue and passed an order holding that the case is governed by Article 119 and not by Article 56 of the Jammu & Kashmir Limitation Act, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") and consequently, allowed the amendment to the Plaint. d) Challenging the said order, the Trust filed Civil Revision No. 177 of 2005 before the High Court. Vide order dated 18.10.2007, the High Court dismissed the revision and upheld the order dated 27.09.2005, passed by the Ist Additional District Judge. Aggrieved by the said order, the Trust has filed this appeal by way of special leave before this Court.

4) Heard Mr. Ashok Mathur, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. V. Giri, learned senior counsel for the respondent.

5) The short question that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the suit filed by the respondent-Architect is covered under Article 56 of the Act or whether the said suit is covered under Article 119 of the Act.

6) The Trial Court and the High Court have held that the suit is covered by Article 119 of the Act. According to the appellants, the suit filed by the respondent-Architect is governed by Article 56 of the said Act and the same was barred by limitation on the date of its institution. On the other hand, the submission of the respondent is that the same was covered by the residuary Article 119 which provides for a period of 6 years on the ground that the nature of services provided was professional services and the remuneration for the same being termed as `fee' and the same does not fall within the expression `price' for `work done'. 7) Article 56 and