The main legal point established is the interpretation of the essence of time in a contract, the applicability of limitation under the Limitation Act, and the entitlement to damages and interest in cases of breach of contract.

Patnaik, J.

The plaintiff, Kerala State Electricity Board, for short, the K.S.E.B. in O.S. No. 53 of 1984 on the file of the Sub Court, Trivandrum, is the appellant. The suit was filed for recovery of a sum of Rs. 1,25,081.25 with interest at the rate of 18% per annum by way of damages sustained by the plaintiff for breach of contract by the defendants.

2. The case of the plaintiff is that the plaintiff is a statutory body having its head office at Trivandrum. Defendant No.1 is a partnership firm and defendant No. 2 is a partner having his registered office at Chittur Road, Kochi. Plaintiff entered into a contract with the first defendant for supply of 25,000 numbers of 4 line cross-arms as per specification and drawings for teak wood poles at the rate of Rs. 29/- each totalling to the value of Rs. 7,25,000/- as per the purchase order dt. 19.10.79 (Ext. Al ) and the contract agreement dt. 27.11.79 (Ext. A2). As per the original delivery schedule given in the purchase order the firm was bound to commence supply within one month from the date of receipt of the order and the entire supply was to be completed making the supply at a monthly rate of not less than 10,000 numbers of 4 line cross arms. But the defendant supplied only 2650 numbers of cross arms against the ordered quantity of 25,000 numbers upto 11.4.80. When further supply was insisted the defendants by their letter dt. 6.8.80 (Ext. A3) demanded revised rate of Rs. 40/-per cross-arm. This was, however, rejected by the plaintiff by its letter dated 24.10.80 (Ext. 4). The defendants again insisted on enhancement of rates for making the balance supply by their letter dt. 17.11.80 (Ext A5) and 3.2.81 (Ext. a6 ) and wanted the plaintiff to reconsider its earlier decision. But, the plaintiff declined to accede to the demand of the defendants and by its letter dt. 25.2.81 (Ext. A7) it was intimated that the request for enhancement of the price of the cross arms was not accepted by the Board. The defendants were called upon to supply the balance quantity on or before 30.4.81, failing which i t was intimated that the original order dated 19.10.79 would be cancelled at, the risk and costs of the defendants. The defendants failed to make any further supply of the materials as per letter Ext. AT Hence by letter dated 1.6.81 (Ext. A8 ), the agreement with the defendants was cancelled. As the defendants failed to supply the balance quantity of cross-arms, the plaintiff was compelled to arrange for supply through another agency by procuring at a higher rate. The plaintiff had to incur extra expenses of Rs. 420/- as costs towards procurement charges. As a result of the breach of contract committed by the defendants, the plaintiff had to incur a loss of Rs. 1,06,001.40 which the plaintiff is entitled to recover from the defendants. A registered notice dt. 18.1.1983 (Ext. a9 ) was served on the defendants claiming the said amount together with interest at. the rate of 18% from 15. 2.1983. The defendants failed to comply with the demand and hence the suit was filed on 23.2.84 to recover the said amount with 18% from 15.2.83 till the date of filing the suit. The plaintiff has also claimed future interest.

3. In the joint written statement of the defendants, while admitting that by Exts. A1 and A2 they are required to supply the articles as stated in the paint, they contended that the suit is barred by limitation. It is further stated that as per the purchase order dt. 19.10.79 the supply should have commenced within one month from the receipt of the order. The entire supply of 25,000 numbers of cross arms was to be completed by dispatching 10,000 numbers per month. The defendants received the purchase order on 29.11.79 and as such the supply was to be completed on 29.3.80, which the defendants could not make due to supervening impossibility in the matter of getting the required quantity of M. S. angles from SIDECO and due to sudden change in the policy of supplying the raw materi