P. K. MISRA, J. ( 1 ) STATE of Orissa, the defendant in Money Suit No. 12 of 1979, has filed this appeal against the decision of the Subordinate Judge, Kondrapara, decreeing in part the suit for realisation of money filed by the plaintiff-respondent. Cross-objection has been filed by the plaintiff-respondent claiming further amount. ( 2 ) THE plaintiff is a Contractor. He filed the suit for realisation of Rs. 1,66,179/- along with pendente lite and future interest. It is his case that pursuant to a Tender Notice floated by the Executive Engineer, Irrigation Division, Kendrapara, for closing the breach in the feeder channel of Gobari Canal, he was telegraphically directed on 4-12-1975 by the Executive Engineer to start the earth work immediately for closing the breach. Pursuant to the said telegraphic instruction, the plaintiff undertook the work and subsequently the work was stopped on 12-1-1976 after receipt of telegram from the very same Executive Engineer. The work which was already done by the plaintiff was measured on 13-1-1976 and entered in the Measurement Book. The plaintiff claims that out of total sum of Rs. 2,57,381/- payable to him on account of the work done, a sum of Rs. 91,202/- had been paid and he was entitled to get the balance amount from the defendant. Though he approached the defendant on several occasions, the amount was not paid and accordingly, a notice under Section 80, Code of Civil Procedure, was issued to the Executive Engineer, Irrigation Division, Kendrapara, and other authorities for payment of the balance amount, but in vain. Ultimately, the plaintiff was forced to file the suit. ( 3 ) THE defendant, apart from challenging some of the averments relating to the extent of work done and the amount claimed, took the plea that the suit was barred by limitation and it was further pleaded that the notice issued under Section 80, CPC was defective. ( 4 ) THE trial court on consideration of the materials on record found that the plaintiff was entitled to a sum of Rs. 1,10,931/- for the work done by him. It further found that valid notice under Section 80, CPC had been served on the competent authority. Accordingly, the suit was decreed in part which is under challenge in this appeal. As already indicated, the plaintiff-respondent has filed Cross-Objection claiming balance amount which had been rejected by the trial court. 1,10,931/- for the work done by him. It further found that valid notice under Section 80, CPC had been served on the competent authority. Accordingly, the suit was decreed in part which is under challenge in this appeal. As already indicated, the plaintiff-respondent has filed Cross-Objection claiming balance amount which had been rejected by the trial court. ( 5 ) THE learned counsel for the appellant contended that the plaintiff had already been paid for the amount of work done by him and was not entitled to the extra amount claimed by him and decreed by the trial court. The learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submitted that, in fact, the entire amount claimed by the plaintiff was justified. After going through the materials on record and the judgment of the trial court, the finding of the trial court which is based on discussion of the relevant materials on record appears to be justified and does not require any interference. The oral as well as documentary evidence adduced on behalf of the plaintiff has practically remained unchallenged and there is no reason to come to a contrary conclusion. ( 6 ) EVEN though the appellant has not successfully challenged the finding on merit, the appeal is to succeed on two technical points. The first relates to the question of limitation. There is no dispute that the work was stopped on 12-1-1976 and the measurement was made on 13-1-1976. The counsel for the appellant submits that the suit is governed by Article 18 of the Limitation Act, whereas the counsel for the respondent submits that the residuary Article 113 is applicable. Article 18 of the Limitation Act is as follows :-DESCRIPTION of suitperiod of limitationtime from which period begins to run 18. For the price of work done by the plaintiff for the defendantat his request, where no time has been fixed for payment. Three yearswhen the work is done In the present case, the suit is for realisation of the money as price of the work done by the plaintiff for the benefit of the defendant on the basis of the request made by the officer of the defendant, that is to say, Executive Engineer. The provision of Article 18 appears to be squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. The provision of Article 18 appears to be squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. Since there was no written contract and the work done was commenced and subsequently stopped on the basis of telegraphic instruction, it is evident that no time has been fixed for payment and as such, the period of limitation will begin from the date when the work is done, that is to say, on the date when the work was closed. Since admittedly, the work was closed on 12-1-1976, the suit should have been filed within three years therefrom. Even excluding the period of notice as envisaged in Section 80, CPC, the suit appears to be barred by time. ( 7 ) THE contention of the counsel for the plaintiff-respondent that Article 113 of the Limitation Act would be applicable does not appear to be tenable, as the suit appears to be covered under Article 18. Article 113 is applicable to a suit for which no period of limitation is provided elsewhere in the Schedule. However, since the period of limitation as envisaged under Article 18 is applicable, Article 113 cannot be made applicable. Even assuming that Article 113 would be applicable, yet the suit appears to be barred by time. Under Article 113, the suit has to be filed within three years from the date when the right to sue accrues. In the present case, the right to sue accrued when the work was stopped or subsequently when the measurement was made. Therefore, even assuming that Article 113 would have been applicable, the suit is also barred by time. ( 8 ) THE trial court recorded a finding that Issue No. 3 was not pressed. Section 3 of the Limitation Act casts a duty on the Court to dismiss a suit which is barred by limitation irrespective of the question as to whether the bar of limitation is raised or not. Section 3 (1) specifically states that subject to provisions contained in Sections 4 to 24, every suit instituted after the prescribed period shall be dismissed although limitation has not been set up as a defence. In the written statement, plea of limitation had been raised and an Issue had been struck. Section 3 (1) specifically states that subject to provisions contained in Sections 4 to 24, every suit instituted after the prescribed period shall be dismissed although limitation has not been set up as a defence. In the written statement, plea of limitation had been raised and an Issue had been struck. Therefore, irrespective of the question as to whether the Issue was pressed or not by the defendant, it was the duty of the trial Court to give a finding as to whether the suit was filed within time or beyond the prescribed period of limitation. For the aforesaid reasons, I am constrained to hold that the suit of the plaintiff-respondent was liable to be dismissed on the ground of limitation. ( 9 ) THE next question relates to the question of validity of the notice under Section 80, CPC. The relevant provision of Section 80 (1), reads as follows :-"80. Notice. (1) Save as otherwise provided in sub-section (2), no suit shall be instituted against the Government. . . . . . . . . until the expiration of two months next after notice in writing has been delivered to, or left at the office of -. . . . . . . . . . . . . . (c) in the case of a suit against any other State Government, a Secretary to that Government or the Collector of the district :. . . . . . . . . , and the plaint shall contain a statement that such notice has been so delivered or left. "in the present case, the suit has been filed against the State of Orissa, represented through the Secretary, Irrigation Department. A bare perusal of Section 80, CPC, leaves no room for doubt that notice in the present case should have been served on the Secretary to the State Government. In paragraph 7 of the plaint, it was stated by the plaintiff :-"7. . . . . . . . . . . . So finally the plaintiff sent a notice u/s. 80 CPC through his Advocate to the Executive Engineer, Irrigation, Kendrapara the defendant and other concerned officers on 31-1-77 for filing a suit for realisation of the amount. . . . . . . . . . "in the written statement, it was stated that notice under Section 80, CPC is not valid. . . . . . . . . . "in the written statement, it was stated that notice under Section 80, CPC is not valid. Further it was stated in paragraph 10 :-"that the facts narrated in para 7 of the plaint are denied. . . . . . . . . . "the plaintiff in his deposition stated :-"4. . . . . . . . . I have served registered notice under S. 80 CPC on the defendant and other officers on 31-1-77 but in vain. . . . . . . Ext. 1 is the office copy of the said notice. . . . . . . . "in cross-examination he stated :-"i served notice u/s. 80 CPC on Executive Engineer, Kendrapara Irrigation Division, Chief Engineer (Irrigation); Irrigation Minister and some other authorities. . . . . . . . . "ext. 1, the office copy of the notice is addressed to the Executive Engineer, Kendrapara Irrigation Division. It does not appear that any notice addressed to the State Government or the Secretary of the Irrigation Department had been sent. Except the bald assertion of the plaintiff in examination-in-chief that the notice was served on the defendant, which had been challenged in cross-examination, there is no other evidence or material on record to indicate that notice under Section 80, CPC had been sent to the State Government represented through the Secretary or to the Collector of the district. It appears that since the work had been done under the instruction of the Executive Engineer, the plaintiff remained contented by issuing a notice u/s. 80, CPC to the Executive Engineer without following the mandate contemplated under Section 80 (1 ). In order to comply with Section 80, notice should have been served either on the Secretary or on the Collector. Service of notice on any other authority cannot be taken to be a valid compliance of the mandatory requirements of S. 80, CPC. Law is now well settled that issuance of notice as contemplated in Section 80, CPC is mandatory. In the decision of this Court reported in 1987 (2) OLR 234 : (AIR 1988 Orissa 267) Union of India v. B. D. Jhunjhunwala notice issued to Chief Commercial Superintendent was found to be improper and it was held that as required, notice should have been sent to the General Manager. In the decision of this Court reported in 1987 (2) OLR 234 : (AIR 1988 Orissa 267) Union of India v. B. D. Jhunjhunwala notice issued to Chief Commercial Superintendent was found to be improper and it was held that as required, notice should have been sent to the General Manager. In the present case, there is no doubt that notice had been issued to the Executive Engineer, Kendrapara Irrigation Division. However, there is no averment in plaint nor acceptable material on record to come to a conclusion that notice had been issued to the Secretary or the Collector, as contemplated in Section 80 (1), CPC. Since the provisions of Section 80, CPC have been held to be mandatory in the decisions reported in AIR 1960 SC 1309 , The State of Madras v. C. P. Agencies and 1987 (2) ILR 234 AIR 1988 Orissa 267 (supra), it must be held that the suit is not maintainable in the absence of a valid notice as contemplated under Section 80, CPC. ( 10 ) THE learned counsel for the respondent relying upon the decision of this Court reported in AIR 1974 Orissa 152 Narayan Chandra Bhania Birabar Jagadev v. State of Orissa submitted that the provision of Section 80, CPC, is not supposed to be a booby-trap and the notice should not be construed in a pedantic manner. In the present case, the defect is not in the nature of notice, but lies in the fact that no notice had been served on the authorities contemplated in the Code. It is not a question of construing the notice in a particular manner. The only question is whether notice had been served on the authority contemplated under Section 80 (1) (c), CPC. As such, the decision relied upon by the counsel for the plaintiff-respondent is of no assistance. ( 11 ) FOR the aforesaid reasons though I agree with the conclusion of the trial court relating to the entitlement of the plaintiff, I am constrained to allow the appeal and dismiss the plaintiff's suit for the reasons already discussed. Since the appellant succeeds on technical pleas, I direct that the parties shall bear their own costs throughout. Appeal allowed.