Period of limitation has to be reckoned from the date on which right to sue accrues.

This appeal is filed by the defendant against the judgment of the learned single Judge in C.S.No.130 of 1987, decreeing in part the claims made by the plaintiff.

2. The admitted facts are as follows: -

The defendant/appellant called for tenders for the construction of eight blocks of 8F (LIG) type quarters and nine blocks of 16G (EWS) type quarters at Ennore Thermal Power Station. The cost of one block of 8F type was Rs.2,90,264.30 and the total cost of eight blocks was calculated as Rs.23,22,114.40 and the cost of nine blocks of 16G quarters was calculated as Rs.40,57,765.65 at the rate of Rs.4,50,862.85 per block. Total estimated value of the contract was thus Rs.63,79,880.05. The plaintiff submitted its tender quoting Rs.21,66,880/- for F type quarters and Rs.38,37,204/- for 16G type quarters and with a rebate of 3%, if both the works were given. Subsequently, in reply to the letter dated 5. 1976, issued by the Superintending Engineer, the plaintiff gave reply letter dated 15. 1976 extending the validity of the tender period upto 17. 1976. By letter No.SCFC/E1/A5/Ennore Quarters dated 7. 1976, the Chief Engineer accepted the offer for the entire construction. The acceptance order provide for payment of security deposit of Rs.1,40,600/-, being the value of 2½ % of the total contract value less Earnest Money Deposit of Rs.5,000/- already paid by the plaintiff. The period of construction was 12 months from the date of handing over the site to the plaintiff. There was a stipulation that additional work that may become necessary shall be paid separately.

3. The grievances as reflected in the allegations of the plaintiff are as follows:-

It is not necessary to refer in detail the various claims made by the plaintiff at this stage as these aspects would be highlighted at the time of dismissing various findings of the trial Court. Suffice it to state that the basic allegations are as follows:

(1) The completion of the work was unduly delayed because of the default on the part of the defendant and therefore the defendant is liable to pay at escalated rate or higher rate.

(2) Many extra works had been undertaken by the plaintiff for which either there was no payment or proper measurements had not been taken.

(3) Many deductions had been made at the time of passing the final decree without any justification.

(4) There was unnecessary alteration in the designs during the course of work resulting in loss to the plaintiff.

(5) The rebate offered by the plaintiff on the total value was given on the expectation that the work would be finished quickly but because of the delay such rebate was not available to be given.

4. The defendant filed a written statement denying in general the allegations made. It was stated that site was taken over by the plaintiff on 28. 1976 and the work should have been completed on 28. 1977. However, the work was completed only on 37. 1980 and after completion of minor rectification works, the quarters were taken over by the Department on 111. 1980. Out of delay of 35 months, there was delay of 7 months in clearance of site, 2 months in supply of cement, 1½ months in supply of steel,

9 months in switching over to modular bricks and therefore the Department accepted total delay of about 19½ months as attributable to the Board. However, further delay of about 15½ months was attributable to the plaintiff. There was no escalation clause in the specification and the plaintiff had agreed for firm prices in its tender. Whenever the company requested for extension, it was clearly certified by the company that no claim in future would be or any monetary benefit due to such extension of time sought for. Therefore, there is no justification for claiming at higher rate. The issue of steel is governed by clause 19.1 of the tender specification wherein it is indicated that no extra payment would be made for differences in weight as per standard tables and as per actual measurements. Additional items of work carried