ASHOK KUMAR Vs. STATE OF A P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri K.V.Ramana Rao, learned counsel representing Sri Vinod Kumar Deshpande, counsel for the appellant and the learned Government Pleader for appeals.

(2.) THE learned counsel for the appellant would contend that though all the issues were answered in favour of appellant/plaintiff only on the question of suit being barred by limitation, the suit was dismissed. The learned counsel would contend that from the date of rejection of the bills inasmuch as the suit was filed within three years, the last day being the holiday on the next day the suit was instituted which is within the time in view of Article 113 of the Limitation Act,1963. The learned counsel also had taken this Court through the respective pleadings of the parties, the evidence available on record and the findings recorded in relation thereto.

(3.) PER contra, the learned Government Pleader for appeals would contend that this suit is for recovery of the price for the work done and a portion of the work had been completed and in view of the same Article -18 of the Limitation Act, 1963 alone would be applicable. Hence, the judgment and decree of the learned Judge may have to be confirmed.