( 1 ) SHORT facts of the revision application are that the plaintiff/respondent instituted a suit for recovery of Rs. 8,926/-from the revisionists with the averments that the plaintiff is a unit of State Government established to implement public welfare schemes of the State Government. The plaintiff makes available loans from nationalised banks and private banks to the borrowers for the purchase of best quality animals. It is further pleaded in the plaint that about ten borrowers described in paragraph-4 of the plaint were provided animals. The amount paid by the defendants/revisionists fell short of Rs. 8,926/ -. Hence, the suit in question was instituted in Civil Court. ( 2 ) THE defendants/revisionists denied the claim of the plaintiff in toto by way of filing written statement. ( 3 ) THE learned trial Court vide its judgment and decree dated 20th December, 2002 found the case of the plaintiff to be proved but dismissed it as barred by limitation by applying Article 14 of the Indian Limitation Act. ( 4 ) THE plaintiff/respondent preferred civil Appeal No. 2-B/2004 which has been allowed and the suit has been decreed by the lower appellate Court in favour of the plaintiff/respondent on 28-9-2004. ( 5 ) IN view of the valuation and nature of the suit, the revisionists preferred the present revision application keeping into consideration Section 102 of Civil Procedure code. Learned counsel for the revisionists submitted that the plaintiff/respondent does not fall within the definition of State government and the suit is not governed by article 112 of the Indian Limitation Act. According to the learned counsel, the suit is governed by Article 14 and the same was rightly dismissed by the learned trial Judge. Placing reliance on AIR 1989 Ker 86 learned counsel for the revisionists submitted that the impugned judgment and decree are liable to be set aside. ( 6 ) THE stand of the defendant/respondent is that the suit is governed by Article 112 of the Indian Limitation Act because the plaintiff is an instrumentality of the State and the suit will be deemed to have been filed on behalf of the State Government of madhya Pradesh. ( 7 ) I considered the rival stands in order to determine the applicability of Article 14/article 112 of the Indian Limitation Act. ( 7 ) I considered the rival stands in order to determine the applicability of Article 14/article 112 of the Indian Limitation Act. It is obligatory to determine that whether the suit giving rise to the present revision application is a suit which may be stated to have been instituted by or on behalf of the State government. ( 8 ) BOTH the relevant Articles of the Indian Limitation Act are reproduced below:-Art. Description of suit period of limitation time from which period begins to run 14. For the price of goods sold and delivered where no fixed period of credit is agreed upon. Three years. The date of the delivery of the goods. 112. Thirty years. When the period any suit (except a suit before the Supreme Court in the exercise of its original jurisdiction) by or on behalf of the Central Government or any State Government, including the Government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir. of limitation would begin to run under this Act against a like suit by a private person. ( 9 ) IT may be seen that Article 112 of the indian Limitation Act, 1963 is equivalent to old Article 149 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1908. Plaintiff is Madhya Pradesh Rajya pashudhan Evam Kukkut Vikas Nigam which has been established under Section 3 of The Madhya Pradesh Rajya Pashudhan evam Kukkut Vikas Nigam Adhiniyam, 1982. The object of this Act is to establish a corporation for the execution of projects with a view to developing and providing for the scientific management of the livestock and poultry resources of the State and matters connected therewith. Section 5 of the said act makes a provision for the capital of nigam. The authorised capital is liable to be fixed by the State Government and the sum of authorised capital may be provided by the state Government. Section 7 of the Act provides for Constitution of Board of Directors with its Chairman to be nominated by the state Government. Section 18 of the Act prescribes business of the Nigam so as to improve, enrich and enhance livestock and poultry in the State. Section 25 of the Act provides for allocation of surplus profit. This provision lays down that the balance of annual net profits of the Nigam shall be paid to the State Government. Section 18 of the Act prescribes business of the Nigam so as to improve, enrich and enhance livestock and poultry in the State. Section 25 of the Act provides for allocation of surplus profit. This provision lays down that the balance of annual net profits of the Nigam shall be paid to the State Government. Section 27 of the act obliges the Nigam to furnish the State government such returns from time to time as the State Government may require. Section 28 further lays down that where the nigam incurs any loss directly in consequence of carrying out the directions of the state Government under sub-section (1), the same shall be made good by the State Government. ( 10 ) SHRI Pranay Gupta, learned counsel for the plaintiff respondent took this Court through the aforesaid and other provisions of the said Act and contended that the suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent is covered by Article 112 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1953. Learned counsel for the respondent relied upon the authority of this Court reported as 1989 MPLJ 253 whereby M. P. Rajya Bhumi Vikas Nigam has been held to be an authority within the meaning of the article 12 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel for the revisionist relied upon AIR 1995 MP 88 and 1996 MPLJ 625 and contended that the plaintiff is not a "state". This controversy on the parameters of Article 12 of the Constitution of India is not liable to be gone into because the words used in Article 12 of the Indian Constitution are Central Government or State Government and not "the State". Suffice it to say that Article 12 of the Constitution of india defines the State in the following words:- "in this part, unless the context otherwise requires, "the State" includes the government and Parliament of India and the government and the Legislature of each of the States and all local or other authorities within the territory of India or under the control of the Government of India. " ( 11 ) LOOKING to the words used in Article 112 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963, it is not required to determine whether the plaintiff falls within the definition of "the state"within the meaning of Article 12 of the constitution of India. " ( 11 ) LOOKING to the words used in Article 112 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963, it is not required to determine whether the plaintiff falls within the definition of "the state"within the meaning of Article 12 of the constitution of India. ( 12 ) THE controversy in the present revision application hinges around the scope of article 112 of the Limitation Act. This to be determined on the basis that whether the present suit is by or on behalf of the State government. In the decision of Devi Dayal marwah v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (AIR 1963 Andh Pra 479 ). The Division Bench of high Court of Andhra Pradesh has held :- "one of the tests to find whether an institution is a Corporation or a department of the Government is to enquire whether the undertaking functions as a responsible independent organization and not as part of any department of State. Another test would be to see whether it is endowed with the capacity to contract obligations and of suing and being sued. Further, the power to possess, use and change a seal is incidental to a corporation and a corporation aggregate can, as a general rule, only act or express its will by deed under its common seal. " ( 13 ) LEARNED Division Bench has further found that since none of the attributes essential to a corporation existed in the case (supra), the corporation was treated as a department of the State. Shri Kohli, learned counsel for the revisionists relying upon a division Bench decision of Patna High Court in the case of Bihar State Electricity Board v. M/s. Gaya Cotton Jute Mills Ltd. , ( AIR 1979 Pat 83 ) has submitted that the plaintiff corporation is a statutory corporate body established under Madhya Pradesh Rajya pashudhan Evam Kukkut Vikas Nigam adhiniyam, 1982 and it has its own legal entity and in that sense this is neither an agent nor a department of the Government, therefore, the benefit of Article 112 is not available to the plaintiff. He further relied on the decision of the predecessor of this court in the case of Governor-General in council v. Awadhoot Balwant Rao, AIR (33)1946 Nagpur 228 and contended that article 149 (present Article 112) applies to suit brought by or on behalf of the Government and has no application to suits brought by assignees and other persons deriving or claiming through or under the Government. ( 14 ) ON the other hand Shri Pranay gupta, learned counsel for the plaintiff respondent relied upon the judgments in the cases of Sita Ram v. Secretary of State reported as AIR 1937 Pat 568 and Bengal north Western Rly. Co. Ltd. v. Janki Prasad reported as AIR 1936 Pat 362 to contend that the suit of the plaintiff respondent is governed by Article 112 of the Limitation Act. ( 15 ) THE object of Article 112 (old Articles 149-149) was made clear long back by the apex Court in the case of Nav Rattanmal v. State of Rajasthan ( AIR 1961 SC 1704 ) in the following words :- "the fact that in the case of the Government, if a claim becomes barred by limitation, the loss falls on the public, i. e. , on the community in general, and to the benefit of the private individual who derives advantage by the lapse of time, in itself, would appeal to indicate a sufficient ground for differentiating between the claims of an individual and the claims of the community at large. Next, it may also be mentioned that in the case of governmental machinery, it is a known fact that it does not move as quickly as in the case of individuals. It is in this back ground that the question of the special provision in Art. 149 has to be viewed. " ( 16 ) AFTER taking into consideration the object of the provision and further various rulings quoted above, it becomes necessary to see that whether the suit can be said to have been instituted by or on behalf of Government of Madhya Pradesh. This Court in the case of Dilawarkhan v. Hazarilal reported as 1966 JLJ 255 has held :- "it may be that the property vested in the state, but unless the State comes forward and files a suit, Article 149 will not apply. This Court in the case of Dilawarkhan v. Hazarilal reported as 1966 JLJ 255 has held :- "it may be that the property vested in the state, but unless the State comes forward and files a suit, Article 149 will not apply. This makes it clear that the suit must be by or on behalf of the Central Government or the State Government where it has not been stated that it was either by or on behalf of the Central or the State Government Art. 149 is not attracted. " ( 17 ) I perused the plaint giving rise to the present revision application in order to ascertain whether the suit can be said to be on behalf of the State Government of Madhya pradesh. Dictionary meaning of the words "on behalf of is that when you perform a work on behalf of someone else or you do it for such person as his representative. Plaintiff in paragraph-1 of the plaint has clearly stated that the Madhya Pradesh Rajya pashudhan Evam Kukkut Vikas Nigam is a corporate commercial unit of Government of Madhya Pradesh. Moreover, the net profit of the plaintiff is liable to go to the State government in accordance with Section 28 of the Act (supra ). Similarly, by virtue of section 28 of the Act, the loss incurred by the plaintiff directly in consequence of carrying out the directions of the State government under sub-section (1) of the Act, shall be made good by the State government. Thus, the liability to bear the loss is on the State Government. Similarly, object of the plaintiff/nigam is to implement the policy of the State. While pursuing the directions of the State Government, if any loss has occasioned, the State Government of madhya Pradesh is required to bear the same by virtue of Section 28 of the Act (supra ). Thus, if the claim agitated by the plaintiff is treated as barred by limitation, the loss will fall on the State Government i. e. on the public. Thus, if the claim agitated by the plaintiff is treated as barred by limitation, the loss will fall on the State Government i. e. on the public. The cumulative effect of the pleadings read in the context of the provisions of madhya Pradesh Rajya Pashudhan evam Kukkut Vikas Nigam Adhiniyam, 1982 is that the suit of the plaintiff/respondent may be said to be on behalf of the Government of Madhya Pradesh and learned lower appellate Court is not found to have committed any error in applying Article 112 to the suit of the plaintiff. Thus, in the result the revision application is hereby dismissed, however, without order as to costs. Application dismissed. .