JUDGMENT - A.A. DESAI, J.:---This appeal by the State is directed against the judgement and decree dated 31-3-1981 passed by Civil Judge, Senior Division, Akola directing the State to pay Rs. 25,667/- to the respondent original plaintiff with interest at the rate of 6% per annum with effect from 1-5-1972.

2. The respondent firm on 22-12-1969, in pursuance of the tender, entered in a contract with the appellant State for construction of staff quarters of Punjabrao Krishi Vidyapeeth. The firm during the extended period by 31-7-1971 completed the work. The firm claimed of having carried certain extra items of work, which have not been covered by the scheduled items, during the said period. Payment in that regard was not made on 30-4-1972 when final bill was paid. Hence, on 17-7-1974 the firm served notice under section 80 of Civil Procedure Code on the appellant. However, it was of no consequences. According to the firm, cause of action for recovery of price of extra items of work accrued on 30-4-1972 and also on 17-7-1974. The firm on 14-4-1975 filed a suit for Rs. 34,736/-.

The appellant State denied the work as indicated as extra items. According to them, the work was covered by the scheduled items and payment therefore was made. Moreover, the suit claim is barred by limitation.

3. The trial Court did not frame any specific issue on the question of limitation. However, the learned Judge discussed the same while dealing with Issue No. (9) in para (68) of the impugned judgment. It is observed that the right to sue accrued on 30-4-1972 when Department refused to make payment for the extra items of work through the final bill. The suit claim being a price of extra items of work is governed by Article 113 and not by Article 18 of the Indian Limitation Act. Hence, it is within the limitation. The learned Judge placed reliance on decisions in (Gannon Dunerley and Co. Ltd. v. The Union of India)1, A.I.R. 1970 S.C. 1433 and (State of U.P. v. Chandra Gupta Co.)2, A.I.R. 1977 Allahabad 28. On merit, the trial Court answered all the issues in favour of the firm and decreed the suit claim. The main challenge put forth by the State is that the time to make payment for the work done since not fixed, the suit claim is governed by Article 18 of the Limitation Act.

4. Shri Mehadia, the learned Counsel appearing for the firm, contended that the question of limitation did not arise since the State has not denied the cause of action as specifically pleaded. Admittedly, as pleaded, the cause of action arose on 30-4-1972. As such, suit filed on 14-4-1975 is within limitation. Moreover, no issue in this regard was specifically framed. As such, this aspect cannot be gone into for the first time in this appeal.

The submissions are legally untenable. It is obligatory for the Court to ascertain from the averments in the plaint as to when the cause of action arose for the suit claim, according to law. In this regard, the Court cannot solely be guided by admission or denial of the opponent. The Civil Court can assume jurisdiction only when the claim is within limitation from the date when the cause of action arises according to law. In this regard, the plaintiff has to stand on its own legs and cannot be permitted to take advantage of the admission or omission of the opponent.

5. Shri Mehadia while supporting the reasoning of the trial Court also placed reliance on the Authorities referred to by the trial Court.

The Supreme Court in Gannon Durkerley, referred to supra, has held that the suit claim for additional rate over the stipulated one, owing to change in circumstances is governed by Article 120(Old) of the Limitation Act. The Authority has no application either to the facts or question as involved.

Shri Mehadia referred to a decision in (Gujrat Electricity Board v. S.A. Jais Co. and others)3, A.I.R. 1972 Gujarat 192. This Authority also relied on the decision of the Supreme Court cited supra.

6. The learned Counsel made a submission that Clause 8 of

Click Here to Read the rest of this document