1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 388 OF 2008 Maganlal Amarsee Chawla (deceased through LRs) .. APPELLANT VERSUS The State of Maharashtra & others .. RESPONDENTS Shri S.V. Gangapurwala, Advocate for the appellant. Shri S.G. Nandedkar, AGP for the State. ===== CORAM : R. M. BORDE, J. DATE : 8 th September, 2009 PER COURT : 1 This is an appeal by original plaintiff raising exception to the concurrent judgments recorded by the courts below. 2 Plaintiff instituted suit claiming recovery of amount of Rs.74,181/- towards the work carried out by plaintiff. Suit presented by plaintiff came to be dismissed on the ground that the same is not presented within prescribed period of limitation. Even as per the plaintiff, final bills which according to plaintiff came to be disbursed on 5-1-1979, the plaintiff has presented the suit 2 in the year 1995. Although there was correspondence between plaintiff and defendants in respect of payment of difference amount, however, such correspondence cannot be of any help in extending period of limitation. The judgment and decree passed by trial court is confirmed by first appellate court. 3 I have perused the judgment recored by both the courts below. The courts below do not appear to have committed any error in holding that the suit presented by plaintiff is beyond prescribed period of limitation. In this view of the matter, no interference is called for. Appeal therefore stands dismissed summarily. 4 In view of dismissal of the appeal, pending civil application, if any, stands disposed of. ( R. M. BORDE, J.) dyb/office/sa388.08.odt