The limitation period for filing a suit for damages begins from the date of contract breach, not from resultant damages incurred later.

SATHISH NINAN &

P. KRISHNA KUMAR, JJ.

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

R.F.A. No.71 of 2015 &

Cross Objection No.57 of 2015 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Dated this the 19^th day of January, 2026

J U D G M E N T

Sathish Ninan, J.

The plaintiffs are in appeal and the defendant is in cross objection challenging the dismissal of the suit and the counter claim. The suit is one for damages and the counter claim is for recovery of money being the value of work done under a contract.

2. The second plaintiff invited tenders for the supply and laying of pipelines and for construction of overhead water tanks for the first plaintiff. The defendant was the successful tenderer. Ext.A5 is the agreement dated 09.11.2007, entered into between the parties. The period of the contract was 12 months.

3. Alleging delay in execution of the contract, the second plaintiff issued Ext.A14(b) show cause notice to the defendant as to why the contract shall not be terminated. This was followed by Ext.A17 letter of termination dated 30.04.2008. On 23.10.2008, R.F.A. No.71 of 2015 &

Cross Objection No.57 of 2015 the work was re-tendered and awarded to another contractor at a higher rate. The suit is filed on 26.09.2011, for recovery of the damages suffered, being the difference in the quoted rates.

4. The defendant alleged that the plaintiffs were responsible for the delay and that the defendants have not committed breach. The liability for damages, if any, was denied. The defendant raised a counter claim for recovery of the value of the work done under the contract.

5. The trial court dismissed the suit and counter claim as barred by limitation.

6. We have heard learned counsel on either side. 7. The point that arises for determination is :-

Are the suit and the counter-claim barred by limitation?

8. The contract was terminated as per Ext.A17 notice dated

30.04.2008. The suit is filed only on 26.09.2011, which is beyond three years from the date of termination. Article 55 of the Limitation Act provides three years for filing a suit for damages for breach of contract, the period to commence from the date on which the contract was broken. The contract came to an end on 30.04.2008. The three year period started to run therefrom. The R.F.A. No.71 of 2015 &

Cross Objection No.57 of 2015 suit filed beyond the said period is barred by limitation.

9. The argument of the learned counsel for the appellants is that, damages resulted to the plaintiffs only when the work was re-tendered on 23.10.2008, whereunder the work had to be awarded for a much higher rate than that was awarded to the defendant. Therefore, the three year period to recover the loss commences only from 23.10.2008. We are unable to agree with the contentions.

10. As noticed supra, on breach of contract the three year limitation period for instituting a suit for damages runs from the date on which the contract was broken. Re-tendering the work at the sweet will and convenience of the plaintiffs resulting in damages is not the point at which limitation runs. The very same argument as is now put forward by the plaintiff, did not find favour with this Court in Delta Foundations and Constructions v. Kerala State Construction Corporation Ltd. ( 2003 (1) KLT 626 ). We are clear in our minds that the plaint claim is barred by limitation.

11. The counter claim raised by the defendants is, towards the value of the work done under the contract. For the same reason upon which the plaint claim is found to be time-barred, R.F.A. No.71 of 2015 &

Cross Objection No.57 of 2015 the counter claim is also bound to fail.

There is no merit in the appeal and the cross objection. The appeal and the cross objection are accordingly dismissed.

Sd/-