Hansaria, J,-A suit was filed by the respondent against the appell­ants for realisation of Rs.I,25,013.21P which remained unpaid, according to the plaintiff, to him for supply of goods which had been made to the defendants between 1962 and 1965. The case of the plaintiff was that pursuant to the orders placed by defendant No.3 sometime in November, 1962, supplies were made during 1962 to 1965. The supplies consisted of machineries, component parts and accessories of various types. Though part of the payment was made, the aforesaid sum remained unpaid; to realise which the suit out of which this appeal arises, was filed. Tie defendants denied their liability and among other pleas taken was one relating to the limitation. The only other plea which needs to be mentioned in this connection is lack of any formal contract between the patties as viualised by Article 299 of the Cons­titution. 2. The learned trial Court being satisfied with the claim of the plaintiff and being of the view that the suit was not barred, decreed the suit in its entirety. Feeling aggrieved, the defendants have pre­ferred this appeal. 3. Shri Chand Mohammad, learned Sr. Central Government Stand­ing Counsel, appearing for the appellants has made two submissions only before us. These are: (i) The suit was hit by limitation; and (ii) there being; no formal contract as visualised by Article 299 of the Constitution, the defendants are not liable to pay anything. 4. We1 may examine the second submission first and in this conn­ection, we may refer to section 70 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. hereinafter the Act, which reads as below: "70. Obligation of person enjoying benefit of non-gratuitous act-Where a person lawfully does anything for another person, or delivers anything to him, not intending to do so gratuitou­sly, and such other person enjoys the benefit thereof, the litter is bound to make compensation to the former in respect of, or to re store, the thing so done or delivered." Shri Das in this connection brought to our notice Mnlam Chand vs. State of M.P., AIR 1968 SC 218 . in which it was stated that the prov­isions of section 70 can be invoked by the aggrieved party to the void contract The first condition to be satisfied under this section is that a person should lawfully do something for another person or deliver something to him; the second condition is that in doing the said thing or delivering the said thing he must not intend to act gratuitously, and the third condition is that the other person for whom something is done or to whom something is delivered must enjoy the benefit thereof. It was further observed that if these condi­tions are satisfied section 70 imposes upon the latter person the liabil­ity to make compensation to the former in respect of, or to restore the thing, so done or delivered. It was also pointed out in this decision that a person whose contract is void for non-compliance with Article 299(1) of the Constitution would be entitled to comp­ensation under section 70 of the Act if he had adduced evidence in support of his claim. From the evidence led in the case and docu­ments on record, we are of the view that the three condition mentioned in the decision are satisfied in the present case and, there­fore, even if there was no formal contract as required by Article 299 (1) of the Constitution, the same would not stand in the way of the plaintiff in realising the price for the goods which he had supplied to the defendants. The second submission of Shri Chand Mohammad is not tenable and is rejected. 5. In so far as question of Limitation is concerned, the contention of Shri Chand Mohammad is that the supply orders were issued between September to November, 1962 and suit having been on 4.5.70, was barred by limitation. The reply of Shri Das appearing for the respondent is that the supply continued till 1965 and the last bill amounting to Ri. 19,835.00 is dated 27. 10. 65. If the limitation is counted even from 1965, the suit was apparently beyond the period of three years visualised by the Limitation Act. But then, the learned counsel submits that defendants had acknowledged their liability within the period of limitation and therefore the same got extended as visualised by section 18 of the Limitation Act. This submission has been advance by Shri Das by referring us to certain correspondence between the parties. But then, the learned counsel submits that defendants had acknowledged their liability within the period of limitation and therefore the same got extended as visualised by section 18 of the Limitation Act. This submission has been advance by Shri Das by referring us to certain correspondence between the parties. In this connection, our attention is invited to Exhibit 5 dated 24th July 1967, which was from HQ Chief Engineer, Project Vartak to the Director General Border Roads, stating that out standing bills, inter alia, of the plaintiff had been found to be admissible puruant to an enquiry held in the matter by the Special Police Establishment, New Delhi. This is also the purport of another letter written by the aforesaid person on 9.8.67 vide Exhibit - 6. Exhibit - 11, which has been written by the Chief Engineer, Project Vartak to the plaintiff and which is dated 9.6.68 states that all the bills submitted by the plaintiff had been forwarded to the Headquarters "duly recommended for payment. It was further stated in this letter that the payment of bills would be made on receipt of Government orders This would show that the Chief Engineer acknowledged his liability and duly recommended the bills for payment which awaited Government orders, 'his letter being of 9.6.68 and the last bill being of 27.10 65-the acknowledgement was made within the period of limitation and the suit having been filed on 4.5.70 has to be regarded within the lime if the period is counted from 9.6.68. 6. In view of the aforesaid facts, we are satisfied that the suit was not barred by limitation. The second contention of Shri Chand Moham-mad cannot also be accepted. 7. 11 the result, we do not find force in this appeal and the same is dismissed with costs. S.K.Homchoudhuri, J.-I agree.