IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the suit for recovery must be filed within the limitation period specified under Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963, and failure to mention crucial details in legal notices can lead to the dismissal of the suit on the ground of limitation.

JUDGMENT ON BOARD :

1. The present First Appeal has been preferred by the Appellant/Plaintiff against the judgment and decree dated 16.09.2005 passed by the XIIIth Additional District Judge (F.T.C.), Raipur (C.G.), in Civil Suit No.14-B/2004. By way of the said impugned judgment, the learned trial Court has dismissed the plaintiff's recovery suit on the ground of limitation and want of proof.

2. Facts leading to the instant first appeal are that the appellant/plaintiff has instituted a recovery suit against the defendant/respondent before the trial Court, for recovery amount of Rs.1,93,867/- on the ground that plaintiff’s firm is engaged in a business of ‘water proofing treatment’ since 1997. The defendant had called the proposal for necessary water proofing work on hotel building situated at Mahoba Bazar, Raipur (C.G.), total admeasuring area of work was 2519 sq. meters. For the purpose of said work, the plaintiff and defendant entered in to an agreement. It was initially proposal/estimate submitted by the plaintiff to execute the work @ Rs.350/- per sq. meter, but after the negotiation between the plaintiff and the defendant Rs.315/- per sq. meter rate had been agreed between the parties.

3. As per negotiation between the parties, the plaintiff started water proofing work in the month of May, 2000 and completed the work on 09.02.2001. Costing of entire work was around Rs.7,20,773/- out of such amount, the defendant time to time paid of Rs.4,75,000/- to the plaintiff, on account of executed work on the basis of bills. Ultimately the plaintiff completed the works on 09.02.2001 and submitted final bill to the defendant on 30.05.2001, but the defendant failed to pay the amount of final bill dated 30.05.2001. Therefore, the appellant/plaintiff issued two successive legal notices upon the defendant on 20.10.2001 and 27.05.2003 respectively. The defendant did not pay the balance amount to the plaintiff on account of executed work by the plaintiff then, the plaintiff filed a civil suit for recovery of Rs.1,93,867/-.

4. The trial Court after hearing of the parties finally dismissed the suit by impugned judgment and decree, holding that plaintiff’s suit is barred by law of limitation. Further, plaintiff has failed to proof the pleadings against the defendant, therefore, plaintiff is not entitled for money decree as prayed in the plaint. Hence, this appeal.

5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/plaintiff submits that the learned trial Court has wrongly came to conclusion that plaintiff’s suit comes under the Article 18 of the Limitation Act, therefore, plaintiff’s suit is barred by limitation. He further submits that the trial Court has came to conclusion on the basis of legal notices Ex.P/20 and Ex.P/21 that the plaintiff has pleaded that work was completed on 09.02.2001, therefore, suit ought to have been filed within three years, therefore, suit is barred by law, but the trial Court has only relied upon Para-3 of the legal notices, but failed to see and appreciate Para-4 of the notices where it is mentioned the final bill dated 30.05.2001 which had been submitted to the defendant, therefore, cause of action for filing of suit will be arising and limitation for suit would starts from 30.05.2001, hence, suit is in time as ought to have been held by the trial Court. He further submits that the plaintiff in Para-16 of the plaint had categorically submitted to the Court that the plaintiff has completed the work in the month of May, 2001, therefore, the trial Court should have taken into consideration of Para- 16 of the plaint, while considering the point of cause of action. The trial Court ignoring the pleadings of the plaintiff. Therefore, it is prayed that suitable order be passed in favour of the appellant/plaintiff.

6. The plaintiff has placed reliance on Venkatesh Construction Company Vs. Karnataka Vidyuth Karkhane Limited (KAVIKA) AIR 2016 SC 553 in Para 14 & 16 are provide as under :

“14. The High Court took note of clause 11 of