The starting point of limitation for a suit for recovery of the price of work done under a works contract containing Clauses (6) and (7) is the date of issuance of the completion certificate and final measurements by the Engineer-in-charge.

A.P. Sen, ACJ.-This reference to the Full Bench raises a question of some importance, namely, whether a claim for damages by a contractor for nonpayment of the price of work done arising out of a works contract in standard form containing Clauses (6) and (7), falls within the purview of Article 56 of the First Schedule of the Indian Limitation Act. 1908 or comes within the ambit of Article 115.

2. The Division Bench before which the appeal came up for hearing felt that the point of limitation was one of frequent occurrence and, therefore, there was need for an authoritative decision. It noticed a diversity of opinion between the different High Courts on the question. It referred to two decisions of this Court in Bhawani Shanker vs. State of Rajasthan (AIR 1970 Raj 268) and Tej Singh vs. State of Rajasthan ((1971) 2 W LN 28), which, the Division Bench felt, expressed views which were irreconcilable and, therefore, it was desired that the point should be settled by a larger Bench.

3. The reference being on a point of law, there is no necessity of going into the facts in detail. The material facts briefly are these. By a contract in writing dated 9-12-1957 the State Government of Rajasthan in the Irrigation Department, granted to the plaintiff a work in connection with Baori irrigation Project in Bundi district i. e., lowering the waste-weir below F.T.L. by 5 to discharge surplus water of Guda Tank, at Pench-ki-Baori in district Bundi. The plaintiff gave a tender at 16% above the scheduled rates, but later reduced it to 11%. The work was to be completed within 4 months of the date of contract i.e. 9-12-1957. It involved cutting of rocks, deepening of waste-weir, earth work construction of face wall etc. Under the terms of the contract, the plaintiff was net only bound to supply labour, but also bear the costs of materials. During the execution of the work, the deepening of the waste-weir involved extra work. The work was completed on 7-1-1958. The plaintiff submitted his final bill on 22-9-1960.

4. The plaintiff alleges that the ‘G’ Schedule was prepared without any trial bore and on the assumption that the soil was soft and only required three leads and three lifts and. therefore, no site plan of borrow pit was supplied. At the time of the execution of work the plaintiff , however, came across hard soil mixed with moranda at an early stage and he brought this fact lo the notice of the Engineer-in-Charge by his letter dated 10-5-1955. The Engineer-in-charge realising the difficulty agreed that the plaintiff should be paid for this as an extra item. For the extra work done, the plaintiff claimed that he was entitled to receive payment of Rupees 85,218 but restricted his claim to Rupees 85,000.

5. Thesuit was brought on 24-10-1961. The plaintiff alleges that the cause of action in the suit arose in Bundi in the month of February 1960, the date on which he signed the final bill under protest, when the Chief

Engineer disallowed his claim for payment of extra work done.

6. TheState Government contested the plaintiffs claim on various grounds. It pleaded, inter alia, that the suit was barred by limitation.

7. Thelearned trial Judge, while negativing the plea of the defendant that the suit was barred by limitation decreed the plaintiffs claim to the extent of Rs. 56,309.15 and the defendant’s counter claim for Rs. 17.228.64. The resultant decree in favour of the plaintiff was, therefore, for Rs. 39,080.51 with interest at the rate of 4% per annum.

8. ShriShisodia, learned Additional Government Advocate, contends that the suit in a claim founded on a contract of this nature is, in a sense a suit to recover the price of the work done by the plaintiff for the defendant at his request, where no time is fixed for payment. His submission, therefore, is that the suit would be barred by limitation under Article 56, unless such suit is brought within 3 years from the date when the work is done. He points out the averment in para 5 of th