R.L.Khurana, J. The appellants hereinafter referred to as the defendants, having suffered a decree for a sum of Rs. 1,02,865/- with costs and future interest on the decretal amount at the rate of 6% per annum1 from1 "tile Court* of the learned District Judge, Chamba, have come up before this Court by way of the present regular first appeal against the judgment and decree dated 20.11.1990.

2. The brief facts of the case, out of which the present appeal has arisen, may be thus stated. The work of roping down of timber scants by wire spans in respect of Lot No.2 of Chhabaru forest for the year 1985-86 and Lot No. 3 of Dradha forest for the year 1985-86 was awarded to respondents 1 and 2, thereinafter referred to as the plaintiffs, by the defendants. As per the terms of the agreement entered into between the parties, the plaintiffs were to be paid roping down of timber as under :- (a) 50 paise per scant per wire span having the length between 800 meters 1200 meters; (b) 70 paise per scant in case the length of the wire span exceeded 1200 meters in length; (c) In addition to the above, the plaintiffs were to be paid commission at the rate of 12-1/2 % of the amount; and (d) The amount spent for fixing the wire span and for dismantling the same.

3. The work of roping down of the timber in respect of both the lots was completed by the plaintiffs within the stipulated period. According to the plaintiffs, a sum of Rs. 7200/- in respect of Lot No. 3 of 1985-86 (Dradha Forest) is still payable to them by the defendants. In respect of Lot No.2 of 1985-86 (Chhabaru Forest) .the plaintiffs are entitled to recover a sum of Rs. 1,13,665/- (including the refund of the amount of Rs. 5000/- deposited by them with the defendants as security). As against the total amount of Rs. 1,20,865/-due to the plaintiffs in respect of the two lots, the plaintiffs were paid only a sum of Rs. 18,000/-. The remaining "amount of Rs. 1,02,865/- was not paid to them by the defendant’s inspite of repeated demands. The-plaintiffs accordingly filed a suit for the recovery of the amount of Rs. 1,26,006-62 paise (being the principal amount of Rs. 1,02,865/- and interest of Rs. 23,142-62 paise calculated at the rate of 18% per annum).

4. The suit was resisted and contested by the defendants. They admitted that the work of roping down the timber in respect of the two lots was awarded to the plaintiffs. They also did not deny the rates for roping down the timber as claimed by the plaintiffs. It was further not denied that the work was completed within the stipulated period. It was pleaded that whatever amount in respect of the two lots was due to the plaintiffs stands paid to them.

5. The defendants raised a counter claim to the extent of Rs. 1,12,532-30 paise against the plaintiffs. It was averred that the work of roping down the timber in respect of lot No.2 of 1983-85 of Kugti Forest and lot No. 1 of 1983-85 of Dagola Forest was also awarded to the plaintiffs. In respect of such work, the plaintiffs in connivance with, certain officials of the Forest Corporation had received the amount of Rs. 1,12,532-30 paise in excess, which fact came to be known when an enquiry was carried out by the Divisional Manager. It was pleaded that the defendants were entitled to recover the said amount from the plaintiffs.

6. The plaintiffs Vide their replication have denied having received any amount m excess of the amount due to them in respect of lots Rs. 1 of 1983 -85arrd2of 1983-85. It was pleaded that the dispute, if any, in respect of the said two lots has no relation or connection with the dispute involved in the present case. .

7. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the learned District Judge:- 1) Whether plaintiffs are entitled for a decree of a sum of Rs. 1,26,000/-and future interest at the rate of Rs. 18%per annum, as alleged ? OPP. 2) Whether suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD. 3) Whether suit is time barred, as alleged ? OPD. : 4) W