Short Note : 1. The plaintiff is a contractor. The plaintiff was given a contract for consolidation work on Nowgong-Satna road from mile No. 46 to 48. Under the said contract, the plaintiff was entitled to get water lead from Shambhu Nalah. The plaintiff took water for the work not from Shambhu Nalah but from Maudla tank. The work was completed in 1963. In 1953 itself, final bill was submitted in which the plaintiff claimed water lead charges from Mandla Tank. The plaintiff was, however, paid water lead charges from Shambhu Nalah and his claim for extra charges was refused. The plaintiff again made a claim for the same charges in. October 1958, which was again rejected in December 1962. A notice under section 80 of the Code of Civil procedure was then served and the suit which has given rise to this appeal was instituted on 7th February 1966 for recovery of extra charges amounting to Rs. 1,100/- on account of water lead. The trial Court dismissed the suit. In appeal, the suit was decreed. The State then preferred this second appeal. Held: The learned Government Advocate has argued that the suit on the face of it was barred by limitation. It is not disputed before me that the plaintiff’s claim for water lead charges from Mandla Tank was first refused in 1953 itself. The cause of action, therefore, arose in 1953 for bringing the suit against the State for recovery of the extra charges. The making the same claim in 1958 for the same charges and rejection of that claim in 1962 did not furnish a fresh cause of action. As the cause of action arose in 1953, the suit was clearly barred whether Article 56 of the Limitation Act, 1908 is applied, as contended by the learned Government Advocate, or Article 120, is applied as contended by the learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondents, Suit dismissed. Appeal allowed.