Article 56 of the Limitation Act applies to suits for the price of work done under a contract, while Article 115 applies to suits for compensation for breach of contract.

( 1 ) THE short but important question which this enquiry posses is, whether Article 56 of the Limitation Act applies to the facts of the case or is it Article 115 which is applicable.

( 2 ) THE necessary facts in order to appreciate the contentions raised before me are that the plaintiff who is the appellant before me instituted the suit for recovery of an amount of Rs. 2,717-82 np. due on the execution of contract work of the first defendant Panchayat at Gundugolanu. It was alleged inter alia in the plaint that tenders were called for by the first defendant for some earth work for deepening the Vindyavasi tank in Gundugolanu village and for providing barbed wire fencing. In response to that call the plaintiff submitted his tender. His tender was finally approved and an agreement was executed by the plaintiff in favour of the first defendant. He completed the work as well as certain other items which were not included in the contract. As the defendant refused to pay the amount, the suit was laid.

( 3 ) THE principal defence raised by the first defendant was that the contractor did not carry out certain works entrusted to him. He carried out certain works which were not entrusted to him and some work was not satisfactorily carried out. The first defendant, therefore, refused to pay any amount more than what was certified by the technical officer.

( 4 ) THE trial court after framing proper issues and recording evidence of the parties, reached the conclusion that the plaintiff has done the work for which he has not been paid by the first defendant and that the amount sued for is the correct amount due to the plaintiff. It was found by the trial Court that the suit is not barred by limitation. The suit was therefore decreed.

( 5 ) THE first defendant carried the matter in appeal. The lower appellate Court found that some excess work was done by the plaintiff and that the first defendant is liable for the same, it however dismissed the suit on the ground that Art. 56 of the Limitation Act applies to the facts of the case and as the work was completed more than three years before the suit. the suit is barred by the statute of limitation. It is this view of the Court below, that is assailed in this second appeal.

( 6 ) THE main contention of Mr. Ramachandra Rao, the learned counsel for the appellant is that Art. 56 is not applicable and it is Art. 115 which must apply.

( 7 ) IN order to appreciate this contention, it is necessary to mention a few more facts before those articles are read.

( 8 ) THE plaintiff issued the first notice on 8-11-1955 to which the first defendant gave a reply Ex. A-13. It mentions among other things, the defects in the work executed by the plaintiff. It clearly mentions several items which were in excess of the estimate sanctioned by the first defendant and also refers to some of the work which, was not satisfactorily carried out by the plaintiff. Relying upon the certificate issued by the Assistant engineer authorising the Panchayat to pay the plaintiff an amount of Rs. 4,581 after deducting the items of work which were unsatisfactory as well as directing the Panchayat to withhold the payment in regard to the work excessively done by the plaintiff for which no estimate was sanctioned by the first defendant, the panchayat mentioned in the said reply that in accordance with the certificate issued by the Assistant Engineer, the Panchayat was willing to pay Rs. 4,581 and refused to pay the balance claimed by the plaintiff. It is pertinent to note in this connection that the plaintiff had claimed in the notice the amount of Rs. 6,411-14-0 but the first defendant agreed to pay on the strength of the certificate issued by the Engineer only Rs. 4,581. 00 and refused categorically the liability to pay the balance claimed by the plaintiff. It is true that subsequently the Panchayat Supervisor seems to have informed the contractor-plaintiff through his letter dated the 29/10/1957 that he has prepared