Point of Law: Article 113 of the Limitation Act reads as Any suit for which no period of limitation is provided elsewhere in the Schedule, the period of limitation is three years and the time begins to run when the right to sue accrues.

JUDGMENT :

1. The plaintiff/petitioner assails the order of 19 November 2018 passed by the Trial Judge rejecting an application made by it purporting to be under Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, 19081. The application itself had come to be made with respect to a counter claim which was instituted by the defendant/respondent on 15 March 2018. The suit instituted by the plaintiff was essentially a money claim seeking the issuance of a decree for a sum of Rs. 36,07,194/- together with interest @ 24% per annum being rendered in favour of the petitioner. In terms of the counter claim which was preferred, the defendant/respondent sought a decree against the petitioner for a sum of Rs. 47,99,228/- together with interest @ 20% per annum. The Trial Judge while dealing with the rival contentions and the prayer for rejection of the plaint noticed that the principal contention of the petitioner was that the counter claim was barred in terms of the provisions made in the Limitation Act 1963 [Act]. The case set forth by the petitioner in support of the invocation of Order VII Rule 11 of the Code was premised on the fact that the final invoice was issued and raised by the respondent on 17 April 2014. It was asserted that the counter claim which came to be instituted on 15 March 2018 would thus clearly be barred under the provisions of the Act when viewed in light of the prescriptions contained in Articles 14 and 18 of the Schedule thereto. Dealing with the question of limitation, the Trial Judge in terms of the impugned order made the following pertinent observations: -

“5.3 Firstly, Article 14 of the Limitation Act (Schedule 1) envisages the case the goods are supplied and bills and invoices are raised pursuant to that. Herein it is not simpliciter a case of sale of goods. The work was executed by the defendant pursuant to the main contract vide which the work for supply including installation, testing, heating. Ventilation, Air conditioning of the under taken by the defendants. Though the bills were raised on pro-rata basis but the parties were under continuous contractual obligations to carry out the work in terms of the letter of intent.

5.4 In the present case also as per the averments made in the plaint/counterclaim and the documents filed along-with, apparently, it is not a case in which each transaction between the parties, i.e. each and every delivery of the product; the work carried out by the claimant and raising of invoice against that, can be said to be independent and different from the other. The entire transaction between the parties appears to be so that the dealings are not intended to be terminated with execution of a part of the contract. But to be continuous, so that one item(goods and services) if not paid, shall be united with another, and from one continuous demand, the whole together forms but one cause of action and cannot be divided. Certainly it can not be a case of numerous, different & independent, contracts within a main contract. Contention to the contrary is superfluous.”

Proceeding further to deal with the contention of the application of Article 18, the Trial Judge observed thus:-

“5.11 In the backdrop of the facts noted above, it is thus evident that the work of the commissioning of the project was yet to be completed, the accounts were yet to be settled, the final cost of installation was yet to known/calculated as on dt 04.06.2016, the day on which the reply to legal notice was issued by the respondent/plaintiff, and it was vide the said reply that the defendant for the first time appears to have denied the demands raised by the claimant/defendant.”

It ultimately proceeded to record the following conclusions: -

“6. Thus in view of the established principles of law and reading the facts in light of the abovesaid arguments regarding the limitation, the contention of the defendant stands rejected