IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN FRIDAY, THE 28TH MAY 2010 / 7TH JYAISHTA 1932 RFA.No. 235 of 2010() --------------------- OS.366/2001 of I ADDL.SUB COURT, THRISSUR .................... APPELLANT/PLAINTIFF: --------------------------------------- M/S.ENARC CONSTRUCTIONS,ARCHITECTS AND ENGINEERS, M.G.ROAD, THRISSUR, REP. BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER. BY ADV. SRI.K.M.SATHYANATHA MENON RESPONDENT(S)/DEFENDANTS 1 TO 3: -------------------------------- 1. SM.KARTHIAYANI AMMA, KANATTU HOUSE, ADAT VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK & DISTRICT. 2. SMT.AMMUKUTTY AMMA,KANATTU HOUSE, ADAT VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK & DISTRICT. 3. SRI.KITTU NAIR, RETIRED SALES TAX OFFICER, RESIDING AT KANATTU HOUSE, ADAT VILLAGE, THRISSUR TALUK & DISTRICT. THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 28/05/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN & S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, JJ. ------------------------------- R.F.A.NO.235 OF 2010 () ----------------------------------- Dated this the 28th day of May, 2010 J U D G M E N T THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. According to the appellant/plaintiff, it carried out certain works for the defendants, which it satisfactorily completed in February, 1998 and the amount due was to be paid with interest from 19.8.1998. On the plea that the plaintiff was told that the defendants would avail a loan and clear off the loan within three years after the completion of the entire works, the suit was, admittedly, filed after the period prescribed to file a suit for money due for the work completed on 19.8.1998. The plaintiff took the stand that there is an oral agreement to the effect that the defendants would avail a loan and pay off the amount within three years. With the aforesaid, the right to sue on the basis of the contract was time barred when the suit was filed. In the absence of a written document acknowledging the liability within RFA.235/10 2 the period of limitation, the court below could not have entertained the suit in view of Section 3 of the Limitation Act. With this formidable bar to the very institution of the suit, the court below had rightly found that the suit is barred by limitation. Appellant being unable to get over that finding, we do not find any ground to admit this appeal. Appeal fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN JUDGE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE prp RFA.235/10 3