K.T. Sankaran, J.

These appeals are filed by the Food Corporation of India and its officers against the judgment and decree dated 6th March 1995 in O.S.Nos.102 of 1991 and 51 of 1992 respectively, on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Hosdurg. O.S.No.102 of 1991 was filed by the Food Corporation of India (hereinafter referred to as the 'Corporation') against the respondent for realisation of Rs.3,53,871.43 as demurrage charges. O.S.No.51 of 1992 was filed by the respondent against the Corporation and its officers for realisation of Rs.1,50,000/-, the amount being the security amount deposited by the plaintiff with the Corporation in respect of three contracts. The trial court dismissed O.S.No.102 of 1991 filed by the Corporation on the ground of limitation, and decreed O.S.No.51 of 1992 filed by the respondent.

2. The case of the Corporation is that the contract for handling and transport at Food Storage Depot, Nileshwar was given to the respondent for two years from 7.6.1982 to 6.6.1984. A sum of Rs.50,000/- was deposited by the respondent as security. During that period, an amount of Rs.8,31,585.20 was claimed by the Railways towards demurrage charges and after waiver of some amount, a sum of Rs.5,30,695.25 was paid by the Corporation to the Railways. It was found by the Senior Regional Manager of the Corporation that the demurrage charges of Rs.4,65,718.15 was incurred due to the bad performance and negligence of the respondent. A sum of Rs.1,27,488.72 was recovered from the handling and transport bills of the respondent. The balance amount of Rs.3,38,229.43 was due from the respondent. There were subsequent contracts between the appellant and the respondent. When attempt was made to deduct the demurrage charges from the current bills payable to the respondent, he filed an Original Petition before the High Court, which was dismissed by the High Court. Though the respondent filed a Writ Appeal, that was also dismissed. The Special Leave Petition filed by the respondent challenging the judgment in the Writ Appeal was also dismissed by the Honourable Supreme Court. After the dismissal of the Original Petition, the Corporation appropriated the security deposit of Rs.1,50,000/- lying with the Corporation. The balance amount of Rs.1,88,229.43 was claimed by the Corporation from the respondent by filing O.S.No.102 of 1991.

3. The respondent herein instituted O.S.No.51 of 1992 for realisation of the security amount of Rs.1,50,000/- from the Corporation. The sum of Rs.1,50,000/- is in respect of the three contracts at the rate of Rs.50,000/- each.

4. The court below by the judgment and decree dated 6.3.1995, dismissed O.S.No.102 of 1991 filed by the Corporation and decreed O.S.No.51 of 1992 filed by the respondent.

5. Learned counsel appearing on either side submitted that the only point to be considered in these appeals is whether the claim put forward by the Corporation is barred by limitation. Issue No.3 raised in O.S.No.102 of 1991 in this regard was decided by the trial court against the Corporation. At present, the challenge in these appeals is regarding the correctness or otherwise of the decision of the trial court on issue No.3 in O.S.No.102 of 1991. As regards the decree granted in O.S.No.51 of 1992 filed by the respondent, the court below held that the suit is not barred by limitation. That is also under challenge in A.S.No.299 of 1995 filed by the Corporation.

6. The period of the contract in respect of which the suit was filed by the Corporation was from 7.6.1982 to 6.6.1984. The suit was filed on 24.10.1991. The period of limitation is three years from the date on which the cause of action arose. According to the Corporation, the suit is not barred by limitation, since O.P.No.3066 of 1985, W.A.No.909 of 1990 and S.L.P.No.4565 of 1991 filed by the respondent were pending. The SLP was disposed of on 21.1.1991. The contention of the Corporation is that if the period of pendency of the Original Pet