This revision petition arises from the decree of the Assistant District Judge, Karimganj passed in Money Appeal No. 9 of 1981 allowing the appeal from the decree of the Munsiff (1) Karimganj passed against the plaintiff in Money Suit No. 26 of 1980. 2. Facts, -The plaintiff-respondent instituted the suit in the Court of the Munsiff Karimganj claiming Rs. 1552.48 as his travelling allowance, monthly remuneration and compensation against the defendant Latu Dasgram Gaon Panchayat. The case of the plaintiff is that the plaintiff was the President of the Gram Panch­ayat till 13.7.78. The President of the Gram Panchayat was entitled to a fixed remuneration at Rs. 100/-pmand travelling allowance. When he was the President, he as the President of the Panchayat had to tour for the welfare of the Panchayat during January 1978, to June 1978, and accordingly he submitted TA bills for the months of January 1978 to June 1978 for Rs. 800/-. He was entitled to Rs. 441.99 as his remuneration for the period from 1.3.78 to 13.7.78. But the defendant has failed 1o pay. The plaintiff has also claimed Rs. 310.99 as compensation for non-payment. The trial Court dismissed the suit on the ground that the suit was barred by limitation, but on appeal the lower appellate Court set aside the decree by holding that the suit was not barred by limitation. Hence this petition. 3. The only question which arises for consideration in this petition is whether the suit was instituted beyond the period of limitation prescribed under sub-section (3) of section 141 of the Assam Pan­chayat Raj Act, 1972, the Act, for short. 4. Sub-section (2) of section 141 of the Act provides that no suit shall be brought against a Gaon Panchayat until the expiry of sixty days after notice in writing has been served. The notice shall state the cause of action, the names, and address of the plaintiff and the relief which he claimed and the plaint shall contain a statement that such notice has been duly delivered. Sub­section (3) of the section 141 of the Act provides that no such action shall be entertained or instituted after six months of the acc­rual of the alleged cause of action. 5. In the present case, the notice under sub-section (2) was dated 14.7.79 and it was sent by the plaintiff by registered post. Sub­section (3) of the section 141 of the Act provides that no such action shall be entertained or instituted after six months of the acc­rual of the alleged cause of action. 5. In the present case, the notice under sub-section (2) was dated 14.7.79 and it was sent by the plaintiff by registered post. The notice was received by the President of the Panchayat on 16.7.79. The plaint was filed on 2.4.80 after 8 months of the service of the notice. Therefore, the question which arises for consideration is whether the suit is hit by sub-section (3). The learned Munsiff has held that the suit was barred by limitation prescribed under sub-section (3). The lower appellate Court has given the findings that, as 1.4.78, 16.7.'/9 and 31.12.7; have been mentioned in the plaint as the dates of accrual of cause of action, the period has to be counted from 31.2.79 which was inserted after an order for amendment made on 5.12.79 after filing the suit for the reason that the amendment of the plaint would relate back 'o the original date of filing of the plaint, and, therefore, the suit was filed within 6 months, as provided under sub-section (3 ). 6. The question then is,-When the cause of action accrues ? The accrual of cause of action depends on the facts of each case. There are different Articles in the Schedule of the Limitation Act indicating when cause of action would accrue. In the present case it is not disputed that for sub-section (3) Article 113 of the Limitation Act would be applicable. Under Article 113 of the Limitation Act time from which period of limitation begins to run is ''when the right to suit accrues" Therefore, when the right to suit accrues would be the accrual of the cause of action. The right to suit means any act or omission of the defendant which would give the plaintiff a right of action. Therefore mere mentioning of date or dates in the plaint as the date or dates of the accrual of cause of action is not conclusive. It is to be inferred from the whole of the plaint. That being the position, in the present case, the right to sue would accrue when the defendant omitted or failed to make payment on the date payable to the plaintiff. It is to be inferred from the whole of the plaint. That being the position, in the present case, the right to sue would accrue when the defendant omitted or failed to make payment on the date payable to the plaintiff. The defendant was to pay as soon as the TA bills were received as far as TA is concerned. As regards the remuneration, it was payable in the next month of the month for which he was entitled to. The statutory notice under section 141 may not be a part of the cause of action, but it implies that the right of the plaintiff to sue accrued before 14.7.79, the date of the issuance of notice under section 141. Therefore, the suit was filed six months after the accrual of the cause of action. 7. For the foregoing reasons, the revision petition is allowed. The judgment and decree of the learned Assistant District Judge are set aside and those of the Munsiff are restored. Before parting with the case, I feel to observe that limitation, as I understand it, bars the remedy, but does not extinguish the debt. Therefore, it would do the Panchayat no harm if whatever entitled to the plaintiff under the law is paid to him. No costs.