The court upheld that the contract claims were barred by limitation due to the plaintiff's failure to prove entitlement and timely filing.

J U D G M E N T Dated this the 25^th day of September, 2025 Plaintiff in OS No.439/2003 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Kollam is the appellant. (For the purpose of convenience, the parties are hereafter referred to as per their rank before the trial court).

2. The plaintiff filed the suit for realisation of money. According to the plaintiff, he is a Government contractor. As per the tender invited by the defendant for metalling a road and construction of a culvert, the plaintiff submitted tenders and it was accepted by the defendants. Altogether, five such works were undertaken by the plaintiff. According to the plaintiff, he had supplied materials worth Rs.1,65,000/- and deposited Rs.15,850/- for the work in Kallala Estate. But work site was not handed over and thereafter, the work was abandoned by the defendants. For the work from Post office Junction to Division 'B', the plaintiff supplied materials worth Rs.6,37,500/- and deposited Rs.48,000/- as security. He has completed 95% of the work by March 1998. Thereafter the work was stopped due to heavy rain and no tar was available with the defendants. For the 3^rd work, the plaintiff supplied material worth Rs.5,04,600/- and furnished security and the said work could not be executed for want of supply of tar by the defendant. For the work at Division B to C in Vettilapara Estate, the plaintiff supplied rubbles worth Rs.5,94,000/- and deposited security of Rs.44,400/-, but no permission was granted to execute the work. Though he was permitted to continue the work from October 1998, he was directed to rubberise the road as per letter dated 8.1.1998. The plaintiff explained his difficulties for rubberised work and thereafter the order was withdrawn after 1¹/ years. The work was delayed due to the default of

2 the defendants. Therefore, the plaintiff requested for 30% enhancement of the rate as per letter dated 19.2.1999 and thereafter by letter dated 2.3.1999 all the contracts were terminated by the defendant, fresh tender notice was issued and work was allotted to another person. As per letter dated 2.3.1999, the defendant directed the plaintiff to be present at the site at 10.a.m. on 9.3.1999 to make final measurements. Measurements were taken and part payment was also effected by the defendant, but the claim made by the plaintiff for enhancement of the rate was rejected by the plaintiff through letter dated 10.5.1999. Therefore, he approached the High Court by filing O.P.12730/1999 and after withdrawing the O.P., preferred this suit claiming compensation amounting to Rs.9,45,676/-.

3. The defendants filed written statement contending that the suit is barred by limitation and misjoinder of cause of action. According to the defendant, the breach of contract was committed by the plaintiff and hence the defendant was forced to cancel the contract at the risk and cost of the plaintiff and entrusted the work with another contractor at a higher rate of 110% above the estimated rate. The allegation that the plaintiff could not complete the work due to non-supply of tar is not correct. There is no fault on the part of the defendant in non-performance of the contract by the plaintiff. According to the defendant, the plaintiff is not entitled to realise any amount from the defendant and they prayed for dismissing the suit.

4. The trial court framed five issues. The evidence in the case consist of oral testimonies of PW1 and DW1, Exhibits A1 to A17, B1 to B57. After evaluating the evidence on record, the trial court dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by the above judgment of the trial court, the plaintiff preferred this suit.

5. Now, the point that arise for consideration are the following:

1) Whether the suit is b