The dismissal of the appeal underscores the necessity for the claimant to substantiate their claims within the limitation period, as per Article 18 of the Limitation Act.

JUDGMENT :

(H.P. SANDESH, J.)

This matter is listed for admission. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant, the learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 3 and the learned counsel for respondent Nos.4 to 6.

2. This second appeal is filed against the concurrent finding of the Trial Court and dismissal of the suit on merits as well as on limitation, which is affirmed by the Appellate Court.

3. The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiff before the Trial Court is that the plaintiff is a class-1 Civil Contractor, he undertakes contract work from Government Institutions, quasi Government Institutions, private parties etc. It is stated that during 2000-2001, the Hakathur Grama Panchayath had entrusted the work of forming road to Biligeri-Bakka bane paisary colony in Sy.No.87/1 of the said village, leveling of ground work near Aiyappa Temple and formation of play ground near the said colony. The plaintiff had successfully completed the said work as per the directions and norms of the said Grama Panchayath and concerned Engineer. It is contended that the concerned qualified Engineer visited the spot and estimated the total cost of the said work to the tune of Rs.5,30,000/- only. The plaintiff submitted the bill to the Grama Panchayath and demanded for payment, but defendant No.7 sought time on the ground that the amount has to be sanctioned by the Madikeri Taluk Panchayath. The defendant No.7 failed to make payment by giving false and frivolous excuses. The plaintiff had borrowed loan from bank, other financial institutions to complete the work. The plaintiff is not in a position to repay the same due to non-payment of money by defendant No.7. The plaintiff got issued a legal notice to defendant No.7 demanding the payment. The defendant No.7 received the notice and assured the plaintiff orally that he would contact higher authorities and take necessary steps to make the payment, but he did not made any payment. Therefore, the plaintiff again issued notice to defendant No.7, but he informed that payment cannot be made on some technical grounds. Hence, the suit was filed.

4. In pursuance of the suit summons, defendant Nos.1 to 3 appeared through the DGP and filed the written statement and defendant Nos.4 to 8 appeared through their respective counsel. The defendant Nos.7 and 8 filed their separate written statement. The defendant Nos.4 to 7 filed memo to adopt the written statement of defendant No.7 as written statement of defendant Nos.4 to 6 and the learned DGP filed memo to adopt the written statement of defendant Nos.7 and 8 as written statement of defendant Nos.1 to 3.

5. The defendant No.7 in the written statement contended that Hakathur Grama Panchayath had entrusted the work of forming road to Biligeri bane paisari colony in Sy.No.87/1, but not given any work near Aiyappa temple for formation of play ground near the said colony in the year 2000-2001. The defendant No.7 denied that the plaintiff successfully completed the work as per the directions of the Grama Panchayath. It is contended that these defendants are not liable to pay any amount. The suit is barred by limitation. It is contended that the alleged entrusted work is not mentioned in any action plan prepared by the Grama Panchayath or Taluk Panchayath. It is contended that the plaintiff has to prove the entrustment of the work. The Junior Engineer attached to the Grama Panchayath have no right to give private estimation for Rs.5,30,000/- . It is contended that t