The expression "right to sue" in Article 113 of the Limitation Act means that there can be no right to sue until there is an accrual of the right asserted in the suit and its infringement or a clear and unequivocal threat to infringe that right by the defendant.

A short albeit somewhat vexing question that arises for determination in this second appeal by the defendant Kakodonga Tea Estate is what exact Article of the Limitation Act, 1963, applies to the suit (culminating in this appeal) filed by Shir J. N. Saikia, a Chartered Accountant of Torajan, Jorhat. The trial Court decreed the suit to the extent of Rs. 350/- out of the total claim of Rs. 3525/-on holding that the plaintiff was entitled to get decree respecting those items of his bills which had accrued due within three years next preceding the institution of the suit. On appeal by the plaintiff the Assistant District Judge decreed the suit in its entirety on the findings that it was governed by Article 113 and that the right to sue had accrued to the plaintiff when the bills submitted to the defendant were refused. It is these findings of the Assistant District Judge which are challenged by the defendant in the present second appeal.

2. The facts of the case are not much in dispute. It appears that the plaintiff did some professional work for the defendant and on 30th September, 1961, he submitted three bills to the latter, one for Rs. 2500/-, the second for Rs. 200/- and the third for Rs. 475/-. Thereafter, another bill for Rs. 350/- was sent to the defendant on 31-12-63. The bills having remained unpaid, the plaintiff filed a suit for the recovery of Rs. 3525/- on 30th September, 1964. The suit was resisted by the defendant on the plea that no money was due to the plaintiff from it as also on the ground that the suit was barred by time. However, in paragraph 7 of the written statement it was mentioned that

"the plaintiffs bills appear to be inflated and the plaintiff must prove his claims and justify the heavy sums of money charged for works alleged and detailed in the copies sent to the Managing Partner of the Defendant."

3. As stated earlier, the trial Court held that the suit was within time only in respect of Rs. 350/-. This amount was covered by the bill which was sent by the plaintiff to the defendant on 31-12-63. The suit was consequently decreed only to that extent and it was dismissed qua the balance amount as barred by time. The trial Court did not specify in its judgment by what Article of the Limitation Act was the suit governed. However, the judgment indicates that the Court believed that the period of limitation for the suit was three years from the date the professional work covered by each bill was done.

4. The appellate Court held in specific terms that the suit fell under Article 113 of the Limitation Act and that the period of limitation began to run when the "bills for the works were refused".

5. The counsel for the defendant-appellant urged that the proper Article which applies to the suit is Article 18. That Article applies to suits "For the price of work done by the plaintiff for the defendant at his request, where no time has been fixed for payment", and the period of three years prescribed in the Article begins to run "When the work is done". The counsel submitted that since the work for which the charges are claimed by the plaintiff had been done much beyond three years before the filing of the suit, the suit was clearly barred by time. Alternatively, the appellants counsel urged that Article 55 would cover the suit. This Article applies to suits "For compensation for the breach of any contract, express or implied, not specially provided for", and the period of three years prescribed by column 2 thereof begins to run "When the contract is broken or (where there are successive breaches) when the breach in respect of which the suit is instituted occurs or (where the breach is continuing) when it ceases". Shri Barua, who appeared for the plaintiff-respondent, submitted that neither Article 18 applies to the present suit nor Article 55 and that the suit is actually covered by Article 113, the column 1 of which reads : "Any suit for which no period of limitation is provided elsewhere in this Schedu