IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP No. 5454 of 2010. Date of Decision: 24.2.2011 Jai Ram …Petitioner. Versus. State of H.P. & Ors. … Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, Judge. Whether approved for Reporting? No. For the petitioner: Mr. Varun Rana, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajesh Mandhotra, Dy. AG. Deepak Gupta, J. (Oral) 1. This writ petition is totally misconceived. The allegation of the petitioner is that he executed building works on the instruction of respondent No.4 and the work was completed in the year 1998 and he raised the bills in the said year. According to the petitioner some amounts were paid and he was assured that the balance amount would be paid soon. It is further alleged that from 1999 till 2002 the petitioner kept visiting the office of respondent No.4, but despite visits in the office of respondent No.4, the amount was not paid to him. Thereafter from 2002 to 2009 he kept sending applications, but again to no avail and finally he sent notice under Section 80 CPC on 30th October, 2009 followed by the present petition filed on 17th August, 2010. 2. Even as per the averments made in the petition itself, the claim of the petitioner is miserably time barred. Filing of repeated : 2 : applications by a party who claims an amount does not extend the period of limitation. Furthermore, in the reply filed by the respondents they admitted the fact that the petitioner had done some construction work for the respondents, but according to the respondents in respect of one building full amount has been paid on 19.10.2010 by cheque and as far as the second building is concerned, it is stated that no further amount is payable. Since the admitted amount has already been paid, nothing survives in this petition which is accordingly dismissed. No costs. 24th February, 2011 ( Deepak Gupta ) (Krn Guleria) Judge.