Judgment :- S.K. Krishnan, J. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in C.S.No.135 of 1988, dated 21.11.1997, the plaintiff has preferred this original side appeal. 2. The case of the plaintiff, in-brief, is as follows: a. The plaintiff, which is a Corporation, instituted the suit against the defendant for the recovery of Rs.2,47,854.80 as compensation as the defendant caused damage to the plaintiff by breaching the contract entered by the defendant with the plaintiff under Ex.A.23 on 24.12.1983 for disposing of the rice bran of both raw and boiled rice, for the quarter commencing from 1.1.1984 to 31.3.1984. b. The plaintiff called for tenders to lift the Rice Bran of raw and boiled rice for the quarter ending on 31.3.1984. Since the defendant offered the highest bid, his offer was accepted by the plaintiff and a proceedings was issued by the Senior Regional Manager on 21.1.1984 in regard thereto. c. Thereafter, the defendant requested the plaintiff Corporation to adjust the amount of Rs.10,000/-, which was already remitted towards security deposit and also executed an agreement on 14.2.1984. Since the defendant did not come forward to perform the contract, the plaintiff Corporation cancelled the contract under Ex.A.25 and thereby, it sustained loss by way of damage to the tune of Rs.2,47,852.80. Hence, the above said suit was filed by the plaintiff. The defendant, however, denied the allegations made in the plaint. 3. After the trial, considering the oral and documentary evidence adduced by both the parties, the learned Single Judge of this Court dismissed the suit by holding that the suit filed by the plaintiff Corporation is barred by limitation. 4. Aggrieved against the said judgment and decree passed by the learned Single Judge, the plaintiff preferred the present original side appeal. 5. Now the only point that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the judgment and decree passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court is in accordance with law and also on facts. 6. 4. Aggrieved against the said judgment and decree passed by the learned Single Judge, the plaintiff preferred the present original side appeal. 5. Now the only point that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the judgment and decree passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court is in accordance with law and also on facts. 6. The appellant's counsel would submit that since the defendant has not come forward to perform the contract executed by him with the plaintiff Corporation for disposing of the rice bran of both raw and boiled rice, which was accumulated at the plaintiff's godown due to the breach of contract by the defendant, the plaintiff Corporation called for a fresh tender and awarded the contract for the same purpose to some other companies at a lower rate and thereby the plaintiff Corporation suffered severe loss and damages and therefore, the defendant has to compensate the said loss. 7. On the basis of the above facts, the learned counsel would contend that cause of action arose from the date on which re-tender was issued and not from the date of cancellation of the contract executed by the defendant with the plaintiff under Ex.A.23 and therefore, when the learned Judge failed to come to a right conclusion on the above basis, the judgment and decree, which was passed by the learned Judge, is not sustainable under law and therefore, the same is liable to be set aside. 8. The learned Judge has not considered the oral as well as the documentary evidence produced by the appellant Corporation in a proper perspective. In such circumstances, the decision arrived at by the learned Single Judge of this Court is not sustainable under law and the same is liable to be set aside. 9. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/defendant would submit that the suit filed by the plaintiff is barred by limitation. 10. It is contended that when the plaintiff decided to cancel the said agreement entered with the defendant under Ex.A.25, dated 17.4.1984, the limitation starts from that date onwards and in such circumstances, the plaintiff Corporation ought to have failed the suit within three years from the date of cancellation of the said agreement. However, the plaintiff filed the suit only on 29.6.1987. 11. However, the plaintiff filed the suit only on 29.6.1987. 11. It is not in dispute that the plaintiff and the defendant entered into an agreement for disposing of the rice bran for the quarter ending on 31.3.1984. Since the defendant failed to execute the contract, the plaintiff cancelled the same by letter dated 17.4.1984 and thereafter, the plaintiff called for fresh tenders in the month of July 2004 and awarded at a lower rate and thereby, the Corporation sustained loss and damages and to compensate the same, it filed the above said suit on 29.6.1987. 12. Now the question to be decided is whether the period of limitation starts from the date of cancellation of the agreement or from the date of issuance of fresh tender. To decide the same, it is necessary to see the Article 55 of the Limitation Act, 1963, which is relevant to the case on hand. 13. Article 55 of the Limitation Act, reads as follows: 16. A bare reading of the above article reveals that for compensation due to the breach of any contract, the period of limitation is three years, which runs from the date of contract is broken or in the event of breach is a continuing one, when it ceases. 17. In the case on hand, it is not disputed that the contract between the plaintiff and the defendant was broken on 17.4.1984 and therefore, the plaintiff should have filed a suit for compensation within three years from 17.4.1984 as per the Article 55 of the Act. However, the plaintiff has filed the above suit only on 29.6.1987, i.e. after the expiry of three years and therefore, the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the defendant has to be accepted that the suit filed by the plaintiff is barred by limitation. 18. It is seen that the leaned Judge of this Court has discussed the entire transaction effected by the parties, and thereafter, he has come to the conclusion that the suit filed by the plaintiff Corporation is barred by limitation. In such circumstances, the learned Judge, rightly dismissed the suit. 19. Moreover, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/plaintiff has not put forth any valid reasons to interfere with the decision arrived at by the learned Judge of this Court. 20. In such circumstances, the learned Judge, rightly dismissed the suit. 19. Moreover, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant/plaintiff has not put forth any valid reasons to interfere with the decision arrived at by the learned Judge of this Court. 20. In the light of the discussion held above, we are of the considered view that there is no valid reason to interfere with the decision of the learned Single Judge of this Court. We have convinced that the learned Judge after discussing the facts in connection with this case elaborately, rightly dismissed the suit, which is in accordance with law and also on facts. 21. Therefore, no interference is warranted in this appeal. 22. In result, the appeal fails and is dismissed. No costs.