Short Note : 1. The revision by defendant was directed against the decree for Rs. 64760 and costs passed by the Small Cause Judge, Morena. It was not disputed that the Department of the applicant State had given a contract to the plaintiff non-applicant for construction of certain work. Security amount of Rs. 645 was paid by the plaintiff as per term. It was to be refunded after the completion and finalisation of the contract. According to the plaintiff, he completed the work in August 1966 and payment for the work was made in September 1969. The security amount deposited was not refunded to the plaintiff and therefore, a notice under section 80, C.P.C. was sent by the plaintiff to the defendant for the refund of the security deposit. Since the security amount was not paid, suit was filed. One of the grounds of the defendant-applicant was that the suit was time-barred. 2. Held : According to Article 113 of the Limitation Act, three years is to be computed from the time when the right to sue accrued. It is true that the plaintiff has stated that he completed the work in August 1966. The argument of the learned counsel for the applicant is that the limitation would start from August 1966 and therefore the suit which was filed on 16-11-1970 was beyond the period of three years. The whole question is that in the facts and circumstances of the present case, when the right to sue is said to have accrued to the plaintiff. Undoubtedly a notice under section 80, CPC was served by the plaintiff on the defendant and thus the plaintiff was entitled to extension of 60 days in the matter of limitation. Further, this Court finds that in the instant case it is proved on record that the payment for the work was made on 24-09-1969. In the facts and circumstances, it is clear that the security deposit could be adjusted at the time when the bill for the work done was finalised in part or finally and not before that. In fact, there was a condition in the contract that the security would be forfeited if there was breach committed in the contract by the plaintiff. In these circumstances the cause of action, as alleged by the plaintiff arose on 24-12-1967 and the suit was filed on 16-11-1970, was within limitation. In fact, there was a condition in the contract that the security would be forfeited if there was breach committed in the contract by the plaintiff. In these circumstances the cause of action, as alleged by the plaintiff arose on 24-12-1967 and the suit was filed on 16-11-1970, was within limitation. State of Rajasthan v. Firm Anand Construction Co. Mandi, AIR 1972 Rajasthan 101, Harij Gram Panchayat v. Thakkar Lakhiram Ramji and others, AIR 1962 Gujarat 14, referred to. Revision dismissed.