( 1 ) THE present suit is filed by the plaintiffs for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 3,08,650/- with interest on Rs. 1,75,256/ -. The claim in the present case arises in the background of following facts.

( 2 ) THE plaintiffs are a company and are inter alia carrying on business of supply of various machineries. It is the case of the plaintiffs that sometime in or about 20-1-1975 the defendant issued a tender notice and pursuant to the said tender notice the plaintiffs submitted an offer for supply of 2 numbers design, manufacture and supply of 70 ton capacity Hoist having 12 metres lift conforming to the defendant's technical specifications for the price of Rs. 4,22,370/ -. The said offer was given by the plaintiffs on 11-2-1975 to the defendant. According to the plaintiffs, under the terms and conditions of the said offer it was inter alia pointed out that the payment in respect of the said supply would as under :- 15% of the total price was to be paid to the plaintiff as advance against submission of the bank guarantee. 10% of the ordered value was to be paid to the plaintiff on the defendant's approval of the drawings and in any case not later than 45 days from the date of submission of the drawings. 70% payment was to be made against despatch of individual consignment documents through bank. Documents to be negotiated through the bank. It was further provided that the last instalment of balance 5% was to be paid to the plaintiff on receipt of the material at site and in any case not later than 30 days from the date of despatch.

( 3 ) IT is the case of plaintiffs that after some clarification a meeting was held and the offer of the plaintiff was accepted by the defendant by their letter dated 13-6-1975.

( 4 ) ON 19-6-1975, the plaintiff addressed a letter providing for revised terms and conditions of payments which provided as under :- 15% value of the order as advance against bank guarantee, 10% value of the order on approval of drawings, 70% on proof of despatch documents through bank; and 5% on completion of erection and commissioning. By the said letter dated 19-6-1975 the plaintiffs also agreed not to charge any interest to the defendant in respect of the delayed payment for the supply of the said machinery.

( 5 ) IN pursuance of the aforesaid contract entered into the plaintiff sold, delivered and supplied the said machinery to the defendant under three invoices, namely, (i) invoice No. EQUIP/0/76-77/294 dated 11-9-1976 for a sum of rs. 4,60,254. 26 out of which Rs. 4,18,817. 26 is received by the plaintiff and the balance outstanding is Rs. 41,437. 00. Similarly second invoice bearing No. EQUIP/0/76-77/296 dated 30-9-1976 was issued for a sum of Rs. 4,60,254. 26 out of which Rs. 4,18,817. 26 is received by the plaintiff and the balance outstanding is Rs. 41,437. 00. Thereafter third invoice bearing No. EQUIP/0/76-77/330 dated 13-12-1976 was issued for a sum of Rs. 50,500. 00 towards the labour charges for erection and commissioning of the machine.

( 6 ) THE plaintiffs have filed the present suit for recovery of the amounts mentioned in the aforesaid three invoices aggregating to Rs. 1,75,256/ -. The plaintiffs have also claimed the security deposit amount as due and payable by the defendants of a sum of Rs. 20,941/- in respect of each of the said two bills which has been withheld under bill Nos. 294 and 296. Thus, the plaintiffs have made total claim for Rs. 1,75,256/-

( 7 ) ON 6-6-2005, by my order I had directed that the issue No. 3 pertaining to limitation should be tried as a preliminary issue. Pursuant thereto, the learned counsel for the plaintiffs has tendered compilation of documents. The defendant has no objection for the same to be taken on record. The said compilation of documents is taken on record and marked Exhibit P-l collectively. Both the parties to the present suit do not desire to lead any oral evidence in respect of the said preliminary issue.

( 8 ) I have heard the parties. The learned coun