JUDGMENT A.H. Saikia, J. 1. The Plaintiff/Respondent, being a Partnership Firm, carrying on business of Rice and Oil Milling at Narayanpur, in the district of North Lakhimpur, was engaged by the Defendant/Appellant No. 3, District Manager, Food Corporation of India, North Lakhimpur on behalf of the Food Corporation of India (for short "the Corporation") for milling paddy for which the Respondent had to deposit an amount of Rs. 10,000/- only as a security deposit by way of Fixed Deposit Receipt of United Bank of India, Narayanpur Branch and the said deposit was renewed on 24.11.83 and 04.10.85 and accordingly the maturity of the said Fixed Deposit Receipt was on 24.11.88. But on 16.06.79 the Appellant No. 3, claimed a refund of Rs. 1,00,385.54 from the Respondent as an outstanding dues to the Corporation for the transaction arising out of engagement between the parties for milling paddy. In reply to the said claim communication, the Respondent informed the Corporation that he was entitled to an amount of Rs. 38,451.63 and the security deposit etc. with a request to settle the account and arrange for refund of the said security deposit. Thereafter, the account was prepared by the Corporation on 16.06.80 in which the Respondents entitlement was shown to be Rs. 32,674.02 on account of milling charges etc. and also the security deposit of Rs. 10,000/-. Despite such preparation of the account, the same could not be paid till December, 1981 on the ground that some more classification was needed in that regard though the classification was made on 15.09.80 by concerned authority. As no payment was made, the Respondent on 24.12.81 requested the Corporation for finalization of the account. Again on 07.05.85 another request was made by the Petitioner for the same in terms of the preparation of the account on 16.06.80 but the request of the plaintiff remained unheeded. Another reminder was sent on 26.10.90. 2. Meanwhile, the Respondent came to know that the security deposit of an amount of Rs. 10,000/- submitted to the Corporation, having its maturity date on 24.11.88, was encashed on 21.03.88 by the Corporation before the date of maturity without giving any information to the Respondent and also without finalization of the account so claimed by the Respondent. 3. 2. Meanwhile, the Respondent came to know that the security deposit of an amount of Rs. 10,000/- submitted to the Corporation, having its maturity date on 24.11.88, was encashed on 21.03.88 by the Corporation before the date of maturity without giving any information to the Respondent and also without finalization of the account so claimed by the Respondent. 3. Due to such intentional apathy shown by the Corporation in making payment of his claim amount, the Respondent as the Plaintiff was compelled to file the present Money Suit being M.S. No. 20/91 before the learned Asstt. District Judge, Lakhimpur, North Lakhimpur on 12.04.91 for declaration of a decree for an amount of Rs. 63,745.97 paise which included initial outstanding amount of Rs. 32,674.02 so fixed by the Corporation and the security deposit of Rs. 10,000/- with interest @ 12% w.e.f. 21.03.88 and also for decree for future interest @ 12% from the date of filing of the suit till the final payment of the amount. 4. Resisting the claim of the Respondent, the Corporation filed written statement denying all those allegations stating inter alia that the suit was not maintainable in law as the same was barred by limitation. 5. On the basis of the rival pleadings, the trial Court framed as many as six issues which maybe quoted as under: 1. Whether there is a cause of action for the suit? 2. Whether the suit is barred by limitation? 3. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary party? 4. Whether the suit is bad for want of statement of proper account as alleged by the Defendant? 5. Whether this Court has jurisdiction to try the suit? 6. To what relief the Plaintiff is entitled? 6. Deciding issue Nos. 1 and 2 together, especially the issue on the question of limitation, the learned Judge held that the date of maturity of the security deposit of Rs. 10,000/- was on 24.11.88 but the Corporation withdraw the said amount of the security deposit prior to the date of maturity and as such the limitation started from 24.11.88. Since the suit was filed by the Plaintiff Respondent on 12.04.91 it was within the limitation period of three years taking into account the date of maturity of the security deposit on 24.11.88 and accordingly it was decided that the suit was not barred by limitation. Since the suit was filed by the Plaintiff Respondent on 12.04.91 it was within the limitation period of three years taking into account the date of maturity of the security deposit on 24.11.88 and accordingly it was decided that the suit was not barred by limitation. Consequently, on discussion of other issues, the Court eventually by the impugned judgment and order dated 07.04.97 came to the conclusion that the Respondent was entitled to for a decree of the realization of the amount with interest as claimed in the plaint and accordingly the suit was decreed on contest for an amount of Rs. 63,746.00 with costs and also with future interest @ 12% from the date of filing the suit till the realization of the decretal amount. 7. Being dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order, the Corporation preferred this First Appeal before this Court. 8. Heard Mrs. Anima Hazarika, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the Corporation and Mr. T.C. Khetri, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent. 9. The sole point advanced by Mrs. Hazarika is that the suit filed by the Respondent was ex-facie barred by limitation and as such the learned Court below committed grave error of facts as well as law in holding that the suit was filed within the period of limitation taking into account the maturity date of the security deposit on 24.11.88. According to her the claim for realization of the amount related to long back for the period of 1967-73 and that apart the Respondent in paragraph 17 of the plaint categorically stated that account was prepared by the Corporation on 16.06.80 and that date had to be accepted as the date of cause of action because after such date admittedly there was no such communication in that regard from the Corporation's side to the Respondent. Her contention is that though it was claimed that the date of maturity of the security deposit was 24.11.88, under no circumstances it could be accepted as a date for cause of action inasmuch as there was nothing on the record to show that the said security deposit of Rs. 10,000/- was ever renewed upto 24.11.88 at the initiation or behest of the Corporation. Since the suit was barred by limitation, submits Mrs. Hazarika, the impugned judgment and decree cannot be sustained in law and is liable to be set aside. 10. 10,000/- was ever renewed upto 24.11.88 at the initiation or behest of the Corporation. Since the suit was barred by limitation, submits Mrs. Hazarika, the impugned judgment and decree cannot be sustained in law and is liable to be set aside. 10. Defending the impugned judgment and decree, Mr. Khetri has argued that there was no wrong in calculating the limitation period from the date of maturity of the security deposit i.e. 24.11.88. Exbt. 1 manifestly showed that the date of maturity of the security deposit was on 28.11.88 which was withdrawn by the Corporation on 21.03.88 behind the back of the Respondent. Since the date of maturity of the security deposit was on 28.11.88, the suit was filed within the period of limitation on 12.04.91. The learned Judge, having found the suit filed within a period of limitation, on correct and proper assessment of the evidence on record including the documents so produced by the Plaintiff Respondent, rightly decreed the suit. In support of his submission, the learned Counsel for the Respondent has drawn the attention of this Court to the following precedents: (i) AIR 1970 Raj. 268 : Bhawani Sankar and Ors. v. State of Rajasthan (ii) AIR 1972 Raj 101 : State of Rajasthan v. Firm Anand Construction Co. Mandi (iii) AIR 1977 Raj 165 : State of Raj as than v. Ram Kishan). 11. On careful perusal of the above citations, it is seen that the ratio laid down in those cases is not applicable to the case at hand. That being so, this Court does not find any force in the submissions of Mr. Khetri. 12. It is not in dispute that there was an agreement between the parties for milling of the paddy for the period from 1967 to 1973. After 1973 there was no such agreement and the Respondent was claiming the amount in question as outstanding balance to be paid by the Corporation for such milling. It was also claimed in the plaint that the final bill amount was prepared on 16.06.80 as stated in the paragraph 17 of the plaint. Hence, after 1980, the Respondent did not take any legal steps for recovery of the said amount except the reminders sent by it on different dates till 26.10.90. On asking pointed query on this point, Mr. Hence, after 1980, the Respondent did not take any legal steps for recovery of the said amount except the reminders sent by it on different dates till 26.10.90. On asking pointed query on this point, Mr. Khetri has failed to give an acceptable answer except the insistence on the date of maturity of the security deposit on 24.11.88. But on meticulous examination of the records, nothing has been found therein as regards any communication of initiation for renewal of the said security deposit till 28.11.88 as reflected in Exbt. 1. Even the learned Counsel for the Respondent could not say what necessitated the Respondent to renew the said security deposit with its maturity date on 28.11.88. In the written statement, the Corporation categorically stated that as regards statements made in paragraphs 3 and 4 of the plaint which pertained to renewal of the security deposit on 24.11.83 and 04.10.85 and its subsequent maturity date on 24.11.88, the burden to prove such statements was heavily left on the Respondent. But Mr. Khetri has failed to satisfy this Court as regards the factual situation in its entirety based on the pleadings and the evidence on record as well and the delay in preferring the Money Suit, when admittedly, the contract agreement had already been ended in the year 1973. 13. That being so, upon hearing learned Counsel for the rival parties and also on meticulous scanning of the record submitted in this Court, this Court is of the view that the Court below committed a grave error in accepting the date of maturity of the security deposit i.e., 28.11.88 for the purpose of reckoning the limitation period. The law on the point of limitation in such related case is laid down under Articles 18 and 113 of the Limitation Act, 1963. In Article 18, the limitation period prescribed is three years from the date when the work is done for the price of work done by the Plaintiff for the Defendant at his request, where no time has been fixed for payments Article 113 provides that the period of limitation for any suit for which no period of limitation is provided elsewhere in the Schedule, the period of limitation will be three years from the time when the right to sue accrues. In the case at hand, both the Articles cannot be pressed into service for filing the instant Money suit. In the case at hand, both the Articles cannot be pressed into service for filing the instant Money suit. Taking into account the expiry of the work agreement in 1973, the money suit was already time barred and as such Article 18 has no applicability. So far as Article 113 is concerned, the Respondent's right to sue accrued from the date of preparation of the account on 16.06.80 and therefore after the lapse of three years of preparation of such account, the suit is not maintainable being barred by limitation. In the instant case, it appears that the determination of limitation period from the date of maturity of the security deposit i.e., 28.11.88 was based on no materials inasmuch as the records as well as the pleadings were absolutely silent to substantiate the acceptability of the date of maturity of the security deposit for such purpose. 14. For the foregoing reasons and observations, it can be safely held that the suit was barred by limitation and as such the same is not maintainable and the Respondent is not entitled to any relief. Accordingly, the impugned judgment and decree shall stand set aside. 15. In the result, the appeal succeeds and stands allowed. Appeal allowed