1. A suit for the price of work done at the defendant's request where no time has been fixed for payment is governed by Article 18 of the Limitation Act, which provides a three-year limitation period. 2. Notice under Section 80, CPC, in a suit against a State Government must be served on the Secretary to that Government or the Collector of the district.

P. K. MISRA, J.

( 1 ) STATE of Orissa, the defendant in Money Suit No. 12 of 1979, has filed this appeal against the decision of the Subordinate Judge, Kondrapara, decreeing in part the suit for realisation of money filed by the plaintiff-respondent. Cross-objection has been filed by the plaintiff-respondent claiming further amount.

( 2 ) THE plaintiff is a Contractor. He filed the suit for realisation of Rs. 1,66,179/- along with pendente lite and future interest. It is his case that pursuant to a Tender Notice floated by the Executive Engineer, Irrigation Division, Kendrapara, for closing the breach in the feeder channel of Gobari Canal, he was telegraphically directed on 4-12-1975 by the Executive Engineer to start the earth work immediately for closing the breach. Pursuant to the said telegraphic instruction, the plaintiff undertook the work and subsequently the work was stopped on 12-1-1976 after receipt of telegram from the very same Executive Engineer. The work which was already done by the plaintiff was measured on 13-1-1976 and entered in the Measurement Book. The plaintiff claims that out of total sum of Rs. 2,57,381/- payable to him on account of the work done, a sum of Rs. 91,202/- had been paid and he was entitled to get the balance amount from the defendant. Though he approached the defendant on several occasions, the amount was not paid and accordingly, a notice under Section 80, Code of Civil Procedure, was issued to the Executive Engineer, Irrigation Division, Kendrapara, and other authorities for payment of the balance amount, but in vain. Ultimately, the plaintiff was forced to file the suit.

( 3 ) THE defendant, apart from challenging some of the averments relating to the extent of work done and the amount claimed, took the plea that the suit was barred by limitation and it was further pleaded that the notice issued under Section 80, CPC was defective.

( 4 ) THE trial court on consideration of the materials on record found that the plaintiff was entitled to a sum of Rs. 1,10,931/- for the work done by him. It further found that valid notice under Section 80, CPC had been served on the competent authority. Accordingly, the suit was decreed in part which is under challenge in this appeal. As already indicated, the plaintiff-respondent has filed Cross-Objection claiming balance amount which had been rejected by the trial court.

( 5 ) THE learned counsel for the appellant contended that the plaintiff had already been paid for the amount of work done by him and was not entitled to the extra amount claimed by him and decreed by the trial court. The learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submitted that, in fact, the entire amount claimed by the plaintiff was justified. After going through the materials on record and the judgment of the trial court, the finding of the trial court which is based on discussion of the relevant materials on record appears to be justified and does not require any interference. The oral as well as documentary evidence adduced on behalf of the plaintiff has practically remained unchallenged and there is no reason to come to a contrary conclusion.

( 6 ) EVEN though the appellant has not successfully challenged the finding on merit, the appeal is to succeed on two technical points. The first relates to the question of limitation. There is no dispute that the work was stopped on 12-1-1976 and the measurement was made on 13-1-1976. The counsel for the appellant submits that the suit is governed by Article 18 of the Limitation Act, whereas the counsel for the respondent submits that the residuary Article 113 is applicable. Article 18 of the Limitation Act is as follows :-DESCRIPTION of suitperiod of limitationtime from which period begins to run 18. For the price of work done by the plaintiff for the defendantat his request, where no time has been fixed for payment. Three yearswhen the work is done In the present case, the suit is for realisation of the money as price of t