JUDGMENT T.S. Misra, J. - This appeal by the plaintiff arises out of a suit for recovery of Rs. 16,000/- from the State of Uttar Pradesh on the allegations that he had entered into a contract with the State of Uttar Pradesh through the District Engineer, Public Works Department, Sultanpur on 3rd July, 1958 for the construction of N.E.S. Block building at Amethi the estimated cost whereof was Rupees 55,918.21 vide Bond No. 14/SIEE of 3rd July, 1958. The plaintiff had submitted his tender for the said work which was accepted at Rs. 55,365.32. He deposited earnest money amounting to Rupees 2,768,00. Constructions were to start from 3rd July, 58 and were required to be completed by 2nd Jan., 1959. The plaintiff started his work on ten residential quarters by excavating the ground for foundation and filling it with concrete and lime mortar. He also did some other work as well. The defendant No. 2 sanctioned payment of his bill up to Rs. 2,691.00 and the work continued till 2nd Sept., 1958 when it was stopped on the orders of the District Engineer, Public Works Department, Sultanpur. The plaintiff alleged that for carrying out the said construction he had stacked bricks and other building materials and had also employed. labour and Chaukidar, According to the plaintiff, the defendants committed a breach of contract and he was entitled to damages for the recovery whereof he filed the suit. 2. The suit was contested on a variety of grounds by the defendants pleading inter alia that the suit was barred by time. It was admitted by the defendants that the contract was entered into with the plaintiff and the District Engineer, Provincial Division, Faizabad on behalf of the State of Uttar Pradesh for the construction of N. E. S. Block at Amethi in District Sultanpur. Further, it was admitted that the work was started on the basis of a Piece Work Agreement (for short P W A) on July, 1958 and according to the terms of the contract bond the work was to be completed by 2nd Jan., 1959. The defendants also admitted that the District Engineer, Sultanpur vide his letter dated 30th Aug. 1958 communicated to the plaintiff to stop the work in view of the orders of the State of Uttar Pradesh. The defendants denied their liability to pay any damages or compensation. 3. The defendants also admitted that the District Engineer, Sultanpur vide his letter dated 30th Aug. 1958 communicated to the plaintiff to stop the work in view of the orders of the State of Uttar Pradesh. The defendants denied their liability to pay any damages or compensation. 3. The trial Court found that the suit was barred by time. The suit was accordingly dismissed. The plaintiff's appeal before the District Judge also fail ed. He has now come up to this Court on second Appeal. 4. This appeal has to fail on the ground that the suit was barred by limitation, Both the Courts below have dismissed the suit on that ground. For the appellant it was submitted that though the breach of contract had occurred on 2nd Sept., 1958 when the plaintiff was asked by the Government not to carry out the work in pursuance of the PWA. dated 3rd July, 1958 the right to file the suit accrued to the plaintiff when a formal deed of agreement was executed on 7th Jan., 1959. In support of his contention the learned counsel placed reliance on Indian Trades Corporation v. Union of India ( AIR 1957 Cal 153 ). I find no merits in this contention. 5. In the instant case tenders were invited by the District Engineer, Public Works Department, Govt. of U.P. for the construction of N. E. S. Block building at Amethi in District Sultanpur. In response to the invitation the plaintiff submitted his tender which was accepted and P.W.A. No. 6/DE dated 3rd July, 1958 was executed. It was signed by the plaintiff and the District Engineer. The District Engineer confirmed the fact of acceptance of the tender of the plaintiff vide his letter No. 2299 dated 4th July, 1958. Under this P. W. A. the work was to be completed within six months. However, the defendant No. 2 by his letter. dated 30th Aug., 1958 asked the plaintiff not to proceed with the work. This letter was delivered to the plaintiff on 2nd Sept., 1958. The contract was thus put an end to. It seems that thereafter a formal, deed of agreement was also executed by the District Engineer on 7th Jan., 1959. It is common ground that the District Engineer was duly authorised to execute and sign the agreement for and on behalf of the Governor. The contract was thus put an end to. It seems that thereafter a formal, deed of agreement was also executed by the District Engineer on 7th Jan., 1959. It is common ground that the District Engineer was duly authorised to execute and sign the agreement for and on behalf of the Governor. In view of the fact that the tender was invited and was also accepted by the District Engineer and the P.W.A. was also signed by him a valid contract complying with the formalities of Art. 299 of the Constitution had come into being on 3-7-1958. This contract was enforceable in a Court of Law. The legal position in this behalf is now well-settled. In the case of Union of India v. A. L. Rallia Ram, AIR 1963 SC 1685 the Supreme Court has laid down : "Section 175 (3) does not in terms require that a formal document executed on behalf of the Dominion of India and the other contracting party, alone is effective. In the absence of any direction by the Governor-General under S. 175(3) of the Government of India Act prescribing the manner a valid contract may result from correspondence if the requisite conditions are fulfilled. It is true that S. 175 (3) uses the expression "executed" but that does not by itself contemplate execution of a formal contract by the contracting parties. A tender for purchase of goods in pursuance of an invitation issued by or on behalf of the Governor-General of India and acceptance in writing which is expressed to be made in the name of the Governor-General and is executed on his behalf by a person authorised in that behalf would conform to the requirements of S. 175 (3)." The same view was reiterated in Union of India v. N. K. Private Ltd. ( AIR 1972 SC 915 ) in the following terms : "It is now settled by this Court that though the words `expressed' and `executed' in Art. 299 (1) might suggest that it should be by a deed or by a formal written contract, a binding contract by tender and acceptance can also come into existence if the acceptance is by a person duly authorised on this behalf by the President of India." In that case there was offer and acceptance by the parties in course of correspondence. In other words, a contract was completed by such offer and acceptance through correspondence. Relying upon Chaturbhuj Vithaldas v. Moreshwar Parashram ( AIR 1954 SC 236 ) a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in Kanchanganga Co. Ltd. v. State of West Bengal ( AIR 1973 Cal 325 ) held that it could not be said that such contract if entered into for and on behalf of the State was not enforceable as valid contract. The view expressed in Kanchanganga Co. Ltd. v. The State of West Bengal (supra) was re-affirmed by another Division Bench of the same Court in State of West Bengal v. Ajit Kumar Mukherjee, ( AIR 1977 Cal 273 ). The submission of the tender by the plaintiff land the final acceptance thereof by the `District Engineer and the execution of the PWA resulted into a valid, binding and enforceable contract. This contract was, however, broken on 2nd Sept., 1958. The cause of action for recovery of compensation or damages on account of the said breach of contract therefore accrued on 2nd Sept. 1958 and the time for filing the suit commenced to run from that date. It was not disputed that Art. 115 of the Limitation Act, 1908 governed the instant suit. Under this article the suit should have been filed within three years of the date of the breach. The suit was, however, filed on 2nd Jan., 1962 long after the expiry of the said period. The suit was obviously barred by time and was, therefore, rightly dismissed. 6. The appeal, therefore, fails and is dismissed with costs.