( 1 ) THE short question, which arises in this appeal is whether the suit filed by the appellant for recovery of Rs. 4,94,824/- was barred by the law of limitation. The : 2 : RFA NO. 537/2003 learned Additional District Judge, who tried the suit has held the same to have been instituted after the expiry of the period of limitation. The appellant feels it was filed within the period of limitation.

( 2 ) BEFORE we come to the point in issue, it is necessary to refer to a few facts.

( 3 ) THE appellant was into the business of supply of road rollers on hire basis. Two such road rollers were supplied by it to the Executive Engineer construction Div. I, LNV, Faizabad, UP after an agreement in respect thereto dated 25th March, 1996. As per the terms and conditions of the agreement the hire charges were to be Rs. 600/- per day commencing from the day of handing over of the road rollers at Faizabad. The hire was to continue till the road rollers were handed back to the appellant. This agreement was extended by an order dated 8th April, 1997 on the same terms and conditions : 3 : RFA NO. 537/2003 except that the hire charges were re-determined at Rs. 700/- per day and instead of the two road-rollers only one was taken on hire. The appellant says that it had sent seven bills to the respondent for payment of the hire charges. Three of these bills bear the date 30th April, 1997 and are exhibits PW-1/5 to PW 1/7. The others are Ex. PW-1/8 dated 24. 8. 1997, Ex. PW-1/9 dated 24. 10. 1997, ex. PW-1/10 dated 31. 12. 1996 and Ex. PW-1/11 dated 24. 10. 1997. Nothing more happened till 4th August, 2000 when the appellant is alleged to have sent legal notice addressed to the Executive Engineer, Construction Div. No. 1, PWD, Distt. Faizabad (U. P.) under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure stating that the payment in respect of the bills, in all, amounting to Rs. 3,20,600/- had not been received and accordingly calling upon the respondent to remit the amount of the bills within 15 days of the receipt of the notice along with interest : 4 : RFA NO. 537/2003 thereon @ 18% per annum. A copy of the notice was also sent to the Chief Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow. The notice so given evoked no response from the respondent. Hence the suit for recovery of the amount. It was filed on 24th October, 2000.

( 4 ) THE learned Additional District Judge, on the pleadings of the parties, framed the following issues:-

1. "whether the plaint signed, verified and instituted by a duly authorized person ? OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the amount claimed in the suit ? OPP 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover interest from the defendant. If so, at what rate, for what period and on what amount ? opp 4. Whether this court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the present suit ? opd 5. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed for disclosing no cause of action ?opd 6. Relief. ": 5 : RFA NO. 537/2003

( 5 ) ALL the issues except issues No. 2, 3 and 6 were decided in favour of the appellant. As is apparent from the issues, no separate issue on limitation was framed. This issue was dealt with by the learned trial Judge as part of issue No. 2.

( 6 ) THE learned trial Judge, while dealing with the question of limitation, has held that the bills Ex. PW-1/9 and Ex. PW-1/11 both dated 24th October, 1997 for a sum of Rs. 98,500/- and Rs. 57,200/- respectively were not barred by limitation. Having held so, the Court still did not allow the amounts claimed in the said bills on the ground that the bills were never sent by the appellant to the respondent.

( 7 ) THE only submission which was raised before us was that the trial Judge wrongly reckoned the period of limitation from the dates of the bills, and that it should have been computed from the date the work was done for : 6 : RFA NO. 537/2003 it was from that date that the payment became due. The work, it was claimed, was done on