1. The facts are not in dispute. Only the question of law pertaining to limitation requires to be decided in this second appeal.

2. The appellant was a foreman conducting chitties. The first defendant was a subscriber to a chitty, and the second defendant was a surety in a chitty bond executed by the first defendant. The first defendant became defaulter in regard to payment of subscription after the 22nd instalment when there were 28 more instalments for the termination of the chitty. The payment for the 23rd instalment had fallen due on 16 8 1964. On 11-3-1965 the plaintiff (appellant) sent a registered notice to the defendant claiming payment for the twenty-eight instalments payable after the 22nd instalment. The suit was filed on 22-3-1968. The question is whether the plaintiff's suit is barred by limitation. Both the courts below have dismissed the suit taking the view that the suit was barred by limitation.

3. Shri. P. Sukumaran Nayar, the learned counsel for the appellant - plaintiff, contends that the courts below went wrong in finding that the suit claim was barred by limitation. The Article of the Limitation Act which would apply to the case has to be considered