The main legal point established in the judgment is that the suit for recovery of the amount was barred by limitation as it was filed beyond the prescribed period, and the concept of continuing offence and continuing tort did not apply to the factual matrix of the case.

JUDGMENT :

Mir Alfaz Ali, J.

This regular first appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge No. 2, Silchar, Cachar in Money Suit No.5/2008, whereby, the suit filed by the plaintiff was dismissed.

2. The facts leading to the present first appeal may be stated thus : The appellant, as plaintiff filed the money suit for recovery of an amount of Rs. 6,86,161/-. The case of the plaintiff was that he was the proprietor of a business firm under the name and style "M/S Paper House" and used to supply office stationeries and other materials to various offices in Barak valley. Defendant No.4, Executive Engineer, Barak Valley Investigation Division, Department of Irrigation having it's office at Badarpur, in the district of Karimganj, issued various work orders asking the appellant to supply office stationeries and other goods to his office during the year 2000 to 2002. Pursuant to such orders, the plaintiff supplied the office stationeries and other goods to the office of the respondent No. 4 and submitted bills for an amount of Rs.6,86,161/- on various dates w.e.f. 07-09-2000 to 10-08-2002. However, the payment against the said bills were not made. Although the plaintiff was requesting the defendant No. 4 to make payment of the bills, the payment was delayed on the pretext, that bills could not be paid for want of necessary sanction from the defendant Nos. 1, 2 and 3. In the meantime, the predecessor of the defendant No. 4 was transferred. Although the plaintiff approached the defendant No. 4 and other office staffs on several occasions for clearing his bills, they asked the plaintiff to wait by saying, that as soon as the fund would be available the payment would be made. When the defendant No. 4 failed to make the payment, plaintiff issued notice u/s 80 CPC demanding the payment. However, the defendant No. 4 in reply to the notice u/s 80 CPC denied the entire claim of the plaintiff, alleging that the claim of the plaintiff was false. Hence, the plaintiff instituted the suit for recovery of money. Defendant No. 4 by filing written statement raised various legal pleas including the bar of limitation, deficiency in the notice u/s 80 CPC, non-joinder of necessary party etc. The specific plea of the defendant was that there was no pending bill to be paid by the defendant No. 4 to the plaintiff, mor any supply order as alleged in the plaint was ever issued from the office of the defendant no. 4. The defendants also stated that the goods alleged to have been supplied by the plaintiff was never received in the office of the defendant no. 4. On the basis of the above pleadings, the learned trial court framed the following issues :-

1. Whether there is any cause of action for the suit ?

2. Whether the suit is maintainable in it's present form ?

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to seek a decree for recovery of an amount of Rs. 6,86,161/- against the pending 22 nos. of bills with interest @ 15% per annum ?

4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree as prayed for ?

5. Whether the suit is barred by limitation ?

6. To what relief/reliefs the parties is/are entitled to ?

3. The plaintiff examined two witnesses including himself and also proved some documents. Defendant examined one witness and upon hearing the parties, the learned Civil Judge No. 2, Silchar dismissed the suit of the plaintiff by the impugned judgment.

4. I have heard Mrs. R. Choudhury for the appellant and Mr. N. Upadhya, learned Standing Counsel for the Irrigation Department, Assam.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant, Ms. R. Choudhury submits that the learned trial court wrongly decided the issues against the plaintiff without considering the evidence brought on record. It was also submitted by Ms. Choudhury, that though, the plaintiff had successfully proved his claim, learned trial court dismissed the suit holding it to be barred by limitation. It was the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that although the bills were subm