Articles 52 and 56 of the Limitation Act specifically provide a period of limitation for a suit for the recovery of price of goods sold and delivered and for the price of work done by the plaintiff for the defendants at his request where no time has been fixed for payment. Article 115 is a residuary article and applies only where there is no specific article provided elsewhere in the Limitation Act for a particular suit.

R.K.Choudhary, J.

1. This is an appeal by the heirs of the sole plaintiff Chamari Misery, who the during the pendency of the appeal in the lower appellate Court and whose suit for recovery of Rs. 1,552/13/- on account of price of goods supplied to the defendant municipality and for works done by him for the defendant has been dismissed.

2. The plaintiff was a professional contract tor, and his case was that he was given several contracts for doing a number of works tor the defendant Municipality at different rates and for different amounts. In course of the works, done, in pursuance of above contract, the plaintiffs dues amounted to Rs. l,335/2/- which were not paid to him, and therefore, he instituted, the suit for recovery of the same together with interest and cost of notices, and the total claim came to Rs. 1,552/l3/- as stated above. In the plaint, he has given a list of the different items of work with specific amount of labour charge for each item and the different materials, supplied by him with specific cost for each of them, and the total number of all these items is 30. Item Nos. 1 to 17, 20, 24, and 25, are the different items of work done by the plaintiff for the defendant. Items Nos. 18, 19, 21, 22, 23, 26, 27, 28, 29 and 30 contain the list of different materials supplied by the plaintiffs to the defendants.

3. The defendant Municipality contested the suit mainly on the ground that the claim of the plaintiff was barred by limitation. There were other pleas also taken but it is not necessary to refer to them because the present appeal will have to be dismissed on the ground of limitation alone.

4. The trial Court, overruled the contention of limitation raised in defence, and also disallowed the claim of the plaintiff for interest. After giving a set off of a certain amount of money proved to have been advanced to the plaintiff by the defendants the trial court gave a decree to the plaintiff for a sum of Rs. 1,017/2/-. On appeal by the defendant Municipality however, the appellate court held that the suit was barred by limitation and therefore, dismissed the entire suit

5. The claim of the plaintiff may be grouped in three classes, namely, (i) relating to items 13 to 17 and 19 to 30 mentioned at the foot of the plaint, the total amount of which comes to Rs. 835/4/- (ii) relating to items 1 to 12, the total amount of which comes to Rs. 205/14/- and (iii) relating to item No. 18 amounting to Rs. 94/-.

6. With respect to the last class namely, item No. 18, the finding of the lower appellate Court is that this claim has not been established and the claim of the plaintiff with respect to this item has been dismissed on merit. In this appeal, no argument could be advanced with respect to this item as the question relating to this item was concluded by finding of fact.

7. With respect to the items relating to supply of materials, the court of appeal below has applied Article 52 of the Limitation Act, which provides three years period of limitation for a suit to recover the price of goods sold and delivered, where no fixed period of credit is agreed upon, from the date of the delivery of the goods.

In this case, on the finding of the lower appellate court, there was no fixed period of credit agreed upon. With respect to the items relating to the Works done by the plaintiff for the defendant, the lower appellate court applied Article 56 of the Limitation Act, which prescribes three years period of limitation for a suit to recover for the price of work done by the plaintiff for the defendant at his request, where no time has been fixed for payment, from the date when the work is done. With respect to these items also, the finding of the lower appellate court is that no time had been fixed for the payment.

Applying these two articles, the lower appellate Court held all the claims put forward on behalf of the plaintiff to be barred by limitation. Mr. Jaguar, appearing, for the appellants, however, has contended that t