IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.642 of 2009 KARI RAI … … Petitioner Versus THE COLLECTOR,DISTRICT SAMASTI & ORS. … … Opp. Parties For the petitioner: Shri Ajay Kumar Singh Shri Ashish Kumar For the State: Shri Anil Kr. Jha, G.A. II ----------- 5. 21.5.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The revision petition challenges the order dated 10.2.2009 passed by learned Sub- ordinate Judge Ist, Samastipur, in Misc. Case No. 5 of 2008 which was filed by the petitioner before him for setting aside his own order dated 10.3. 2008 passed in Money by which the Suit was rejected on account of being barred by limitation. The petitioner who was the plaintiff in the court below had filed a Money suit for recovery of a particular sum of money which he claimed as dues to him on the part of the Government of Bihar in execution of certain contract in the light of a particular agreement which appears mentioned in the impugned order. The suit was presented on 2 19.5.2008 and it appears that the question of payment of the full bill amount was being considered by the Liabilities Committee of the Government which rejected the prayer on 29.6.2005. The learned Sub-ordinate Judge I was of the opinion that the period of limitation of three years was to run from 30.6.1990 on which date the part of the bill was paid as final payment and, as such, the suit was barred by period of limitation and, as such, the plaint was rejected. The learned Sub-ordinate Judge had taken notice of the fact that the claim of the petitioner in respect of the rest part of the bill amount was being considered by the Liabilities Committee of the Government of Bihar as may appear from the above noted order dated 10.3. 2008. The lower court ought to have considered that the payment would not have been final as the Government of Bihar was itself considering the claim of the petitioner through its aforesaid Committee which had finally rejected the claim of the petitioner on 29.6.2005 and, as such, the limitation could be starting either on 3 29.6.2005 or from the date the order could have been communicated to the petitioner by the State of Bihar in the light of decision of the Liabilities Committee. The court below appears falling completely in error of law in computing the period of limitation and dismissing the suit. I direct that Money Suit bearing No. 3 of 2008 be restored to its original number and file and if there is any defect further then that could be taken up for admission and further hearing. The court could be taking necessary steps as soon as the Government of Bihar files its appearance and also defence. The court could be exploring the possibility of settling the matter through alternative method as provided under Section 89 and Order 10( c) of the C.P.C. This petition is accordingly allowed. Kanth ( Dharnidhar Jha, J.)