Ramachandran Nair, J. The review petitioner is the appellant in R.F.A. No.674/2007 and the plaintiff in O.S. No.247/1997 before the Sub Court, Thiruvananthapuram. The suit was one filed claiming damages alleging breach of contract, to receive the deferred payment and refund of excess money recovered by the respondents.
2. The trial court dismissed the suit by holding the view that the suit is barred by limitation. This judgment was confirmed in appeal by a Division Bench of this Court.
3. Learned counsel for the review petitioner Shri Dinesh R. Shenoy submitted that this Court found against the review petitioner for the reason that Ext.A3 will show that the work was completed on 30.4.1993, but the suit was filed only on 27.6.1997. It is submitted that Ext.B2 measurement book at page 64 having the entry, Ext.B2(a), shows that the payment was received only on 31.3.1994. It is also submitted that supplementary agreements have been executed on 8.3.1994 extending the time for performance of the contract.
4. Learned Senior Government Pleader, Shri Padmaraj submitted that both the above grounds have been considered by the Sub Court as well as this Court and there is no apparent error in the judgment.
5. We have also gone through Ext.B2 and the entry, Ext.B2(a).
Therein, after receiving the payment, the plaintiff has only recorded as follows: “payment received under protest”. The date is not at all given in that page. Therefore, Ext.B2(a) cannot advance the case of the review petitioner. As regards the supplementary agreements, we are of the view that even though they have been executed on 8.3.1994, that cannot advance the case of the review petitioner since Ext.A3 will show that the work was completed on 30.4.1993. Obviously, supplementary agreements have been executed later extending the time for performance of the contract; It was only a formality remaining, as already work was completed on 30.4.1993. There were earlier extensions as evident from Exts.B1(g), B1(h) and B1(i). The plaintiff issued the suit notice on 3.3.1997 which was issued after three years from the date of completion of the work. The Sub Court took the view that the cause of action arose on 30.4.1993 when the work was completed and no demand for money was there till 3.3.1997. Therefore, it was held that as no demand was made for a period of almost four years from the date of completion of the work, the suit is barred by limitation. The above view of the trial court was upheld by this Court. In paragraph 5 of the judgment, all the details have been considered by this Court. The date of execution of supplementary agreements, Exts.B1(f) to (i) have also been considered by this Court. This Court also confirmed that the cause of action was found to have arisen on the date 30.4.1993, when the work was completed. We are of the view that there is no error apparent on the face of the judgment.
Accordingly, the review petition is dismissed, but without any order as to costs.
(T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, JUDGE) (P.V.ASHA, JUDGE) kav/