JUDGMENT A. K. PARICHHA, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the learned Subordinate Judge, Angul in Money Suit No. 2 of 1979-III dismissing the plaintiff’s suit for recovery of Rs. 9052.65 from the defendant. 2. The appellant-plaintiff’s case, in brief, is that it is a statutory Corporation dealing with the business of procurement and public distribution of food articles and for the purpose of distribution, it appoints storage agents. The defendant was appointed as such storage agent for Angul for stock and issue of sugar to consumers at uniform rate through retail dealers ap¬pointed by the Collector. The defendant accepted the appointment and executed an agreement undertaking to abide by the terms and conditions embodied for appointment as storage agent for the year 1972-73 to 1977-78. One of the conditions was that the defendant would hold the sugar stock of the plaintiff and would issue the sugar stock to retailers as per the release order issued by the plaintiff, but contrary to this condition, the defendant disposed of Q. 78.66 kg. of sugar on its own account without any release order. The Quality Inspector of the plaintiff during his inspection of the stock on 3.12.1975 found the shortage of the above noted quantity of sugar from the stock, whereafter the defendant furnished a demand draft of Rs. 16,536/- alongwith his letter dated 16.2.1976 towards the cost of Rs. 78.66 quintals of sugar disposed of on its own account at the rate of Rs. 215/- per quintal. The plaintiff averred that as the defendant disposed of 78.66 quintals of sugar in an unauthorized manner on its own account, the plaintiff is entitled to be realized the value of that quantity of sugar at the open market rate prevalent at that time, i.e. Rs. 460/- per quintal. Thus, after adjusting Rs. 10,594.95 which was due to the defendant towards his remunera¬tion as storage agent for the relevant period, it claimed Rs. 9052.65 alongwith 12% interest thereon per annum from the defend¬ant. 3. The defendant in its written statement admitted that it was appointed as storage agent of the plaintiff and that it agreed to the terms and conditions embodied in the appointment documents. It also admitted to have sold 78.66 quintals of sugar out of the stock on its own without any release order. 3. The defendant in its written statement admitted that it was appointed as storage agent of the plaintiff and that it agreed to the terms and conditions embodied in the appointment documents. It also admitted to have sold 78.66 quintals of sugar out of the stock on its own without any release order. It however denied the claim of the plaintiff on the plea that 78.66 quintals of sugar stock contained in 79 bags kept on the floor of the godown had gathered moisture and had deteriorated in quality and no retailer was willing to lift that stock and therefore to save the plaintiff from loss, it sold the sugar stock in those 79 bags on its own at the control rate after obtaining instruction from the Quality Inspector of the plaintiff. The defendant also plead¬ed that the adjustment of his remuneration amount of Rs. 10,594.95 was illegal and made a cross claim for recovery of that amount from the plaintiff. 4. From the pleadings of the parties the following issues were framed : (1) Is the suit maintainable as framed ? (2) Has the plaintiff any case of action to sue ? (3) Was there any storage agency undertaking executed by the defendant ? (4) Is the defendant legally entitled to sell the sugar ? (5) Is the counter claim maintainable and defendant entitled to get decree for such claim ? (6) What relief parties are entitled to ? (7) Is the suit barred by limitation ? The plaintiff examined six witnesses and filed documents which were marked as Exts. 1 to 13. The defendant examined two witnesses and did not file any document. On consideration of these evidence, learned trial Court held that the defendant sold Q. 78.66 kg of sugar stock on its own with the permission of the Quality Inspector in order to save the plaintiff from the out right loss and therefore it was not liable to pay the claim amount to the plaintiff. Learned trial Court also held that although the defendant was due to get a remuneration for his service as storage agent, the said claim was barred by limita¬tion. With these findings, learned trial Court dismissed the claim and also the counter claim. Aggrieved by such judgment and decree, the plaintiff has filed this appeal and the defendant has filed a cross appeal. 5. With these findings, learned trial Court dismissed the claim and also the counter claim. Aggrieved by such judgment and decree, the plaintiff has filed this appeal and the defendant has filed a cross appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the sugar stock of the Food Corporation of India (in short, “the FCI”) in the hands of the agent could only be released or sold as per the release order granted by the plaintiff, but the defendant sold the above said stock on its own without any release order, which was itself illegal. According to him, when the defendant did not produce any document to show that with the permission of the Quality Inspector, he sold the stock and when it admitted to have sold the stock in it’s retail shops, it was liable to pay the cost of the sugar at the rate prevalent in the retail open market. Though the respondent entered appearance and engaged coun¬sel, no one offered any argument in the cross appeal supporting the counter claim. 6. Since the appointment of the defendant as storage agent and the acceptance of the terms and conditions prescribed for the storage agent by the defendant is not under dispute, there is no necessity of analyzing the evidences in this regard. The defend¬ant admitted that he sold the sugar stock amounting to 78.66 quintals without any release order. So the onus was on it to justify such sale without any release order. It’s explanation was that the sugar in 79 bags lying on the floor were fast deterio¬rating due to moisture contents and no retailer was willing to lift that stock and so after bringing this fact to the notice of the Quality Inspector who instructed to sell the stock forth¬with, it sold the stock in it’s retail shops in good faith to save the FCI from the outright loss. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that this explanation was not substantiated by any document or entry in the stock register and therefore, the same was not acceptable. It appears from the cross-examination of P.W.4-Quality Inspector that defendant had actually brought to his notice that sugar in 79 bags had gathered moisture and had deteriorated and that no retailer was willing to lift that stock. P.W.4 admitted that he directed the defendant to immediately sell that stock. It appears from the cross-examination of P.W.4-Quality Inspector that defendant had actually brought to his notice that sugar in 79 bags had gathered moisture and had deteriorated and that no retailer was willing to lift that stock. P.W.4 admitted that he directed the defendant to immediately sell that stock. This admission of P.W.4 suggests that the explanation of the defendant was not a colourable pretence. It is true that there was no release order and defendant did not produce any register showing the details and the manner of the sale of the deteriorated stocks, but once the transaction was undertaken in good faith, it would be protected under Section 189 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. Section 189, which reads thus : “189. Agent’s authority in an emergency - An agent has authority, in an emergency, to do all such acts for the purpose of protecting his principal from loss as would be done by a person of ordinary prudence, in his own case, under similar circumstances. 7. There cannot be any dispute that sugar is a perishable commodity and when it gathers moisture its starts melting and its value deteriorates. Since P.W.4 himself admitted that the defendant brought to his notice about the deplorable condition of the sugar in 79 bags, he asked the defendant to sell the stock immediately. One cannot expect that sub-standard quality of sugar would fetch the open market price prevalent. So, selling of the deteriorated stock at the control rate through its own out let by the defendant cannot be termed as illegal and on that ground it cannot be saddled with damage. Admittedly, the defendant has deposited the cost of the sugar as the control rate which under the given circumstances can be considered reasonable. So the learned trial Court did not commit any error in concluding that the claim of the plaintiff against the defendant was not main¬tainable. 8. Section 3 (2)(b)(ii) of the Limitation Act provides that any claim by way of a set-off or counter claim shall be treated as a separate suit and shall be deemed to have been instituted on the date on which the counter claim is made in the Court. No specific period of limitation has been prescribed for counter claim and as such the provision of residuary of Article 113 of the Act will apply. Article 113 prescribes a limitation of three years. No specific period of limitation has been prescribed for counter claim and as such the provision of residuary of Article 113 of the Act will apply. Article 113 prescribes a limitation of three years. The defendant claimed remuneration for the period from khariff year 1973 to khariff year 1975. But the counter claim was filed on 1.8.1979, which was beyond the period of 3 years. So, learned trial Court had every justification of reject¬ing the cross claim of the defendant-respondent on the ground of limitation. 9. For the aforesaid reasons, the appeal and the cross appeal are both found to be without any merit and are dismissed, but in the above noted peculiar circumstances without any cost. Appeal and cross appeal dismissed.