JUDGMENT : Challenging the judgment and decree dated 23.8.1995 passed by 12th Additional District Judge, Jabalpur in Civil Suit No. 9-B/95, the plaintiff/appellant has come before this Court against the rejection of its claim on the ground of limitation. 2. The short facts of the case are that the plaintiff/appellant is a company registered under the provisions of Companies Act and doing business of general insurance of the vehicles. The Everest Building Product Limited, Everest House, 948, Napier Town, Jabalpur has transported its goods from the vehicle of the defendant-company from Kymore to Indore. Booking receipt bearing No. 2681 dated 26/2/1988 was issued. The said good was insured by the plaintiff-company under the Marin Insurance Policy bearing No. 253106/ 044/00025/87 for Rs. 2,53,000/-. The said good was required to be transported by the carrier at the place of destination i.e. Indore. On the next day i.e. 2712/1988 at 11.15 a.m. near Dhasan river the good was badly damaged. On receiving the intimation and on submission of the claim form, Mr. P.K. Marwaha was appointed as a Surveyor who, after survey, submitted his report and found loss to the tune of R. 42,447/- and the expenses of surveyor and other expenses have come to Rs. 2,587/-, which was paid by the insurance company on 29/12/1988. However, the suit for recovery of Rs. 45,025/- along with interest @ 18% p.a. has been filed by the plaintiff/appellant against the carrier. 3. Defendant has denied all the plaint allegations and raised an issue that the suit filed by the plaintiff is barred by limitation. It is stated that the suit has not been filed within a period of three years from the date of injury caused to the goods. 4. The trial Court framed various issues and issue No. 5 relates to the limitation which has been decided against the plaintiff. The trial Court arrived at a finding that from the date of loss or causing injury to the goods, the suit has not been filed within three years as required under Article 10 of the Limitation Act, 1963, therefore, it is barred by limitation. 5. The trial Court arrived at a finding that from the date of loss or causing injury to the goods, the suit has not been filed within three years as required under Article 10 of the Limitation Act, 1963, therefore, it is barred by limitation. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that in the present case the suit has been filed for recovery of the money paid by the plaintiff on behalf of defendant, however, the period of three years of limitation shall run from the date when the money is paid as per Article 23 of the Limitation Act. It is said that from the date of payment of money by the insurance company the suit is within limitation, therefore, the finding recorded by the trial Court is liable to be set aside. To buttress the submission as made above-, learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance on the judgment of Rajasthan High Court in the case of Shankerlal vs. Motilal and another, AIR 1957 Rajasthan 267 and contended that in such a case for reimbursement of amount paid by the insurance company on behalf of the defendant, the period of limitation shall run from the date on which the money is paid, however, the finding recorded by the trial Court to dismiss the suit as barred by limitation in view of Article 10 of the Limitation Act is unsustainable in law. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/carrier/defendant contends that Part II of the Limitation Act deals with the suit relating to the contract. Article 10 specifies the suit against a carrier for compensation for losing or injuring goods. The period of limitation of such suit is three years and the period begins is the date of loss or injury occurs. In the present case under the contract the insurance company has indemnified the liability, however, while making the payment of compensation for damage of goods the period of limitation would run from the date on which the damage occurs. It is further submitted by him that the plea as taken in the plaint that the period of limitation would run from the date on which the damage occurs. It is further submitted by him that the plea as taken in the plaint that the period of limitation would run from the date on which the damage occurs. It is further submitted by him that the plea as taken in the plaint that the period of limitation would run from the date of payment or from the date of issuance of letter of subrogation would not relevant in the facts of the present case as the suit has been filed against the carrier for recovery of amount under the Carriers Act, therefore, provision of Article 23 of the Limitation Act do not attract in the facts of the case. Placing reliance on the two judgments of the Madras High Court in the cases of Union of India vs. B.L.N. Sitaramiash and others, AIR 1962 Maras 34and Trustees of the Port of Madras vs. Home Insurance Co. Ltd., AIR 197Madras 48, it is urged that in such a case limitation would run from the date on which the damage occurs. Lastly it is contended that the judgment of Rajasthan High Court as relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant, relates to Section 6of the Contract Act which does not attract in th*e facts of the present case. However, the trial Court has not committed any error while dismissing the suit as barred by limitation. 7. After having heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and on perusal of the record, it is apparent that the plaintiff/insurance company has filed a suit against a carrier on 22/10/1991 for an amount of Rs. 45,025/- along with interest @ 18%. The said amount was paid by the insurance company to the Everest Building Product Limited for injury of the gods transported through carrier of defendant from Kymore to Indore. The said good was insured under Marin Insurance Policy for an amount of Rs. 2,53,000/ -. The injury has been caused on 27/2/1988 at 11.15 a.m. When the accident has taken place near Ghasan river on the road. The intimation was given by the carrier on 29/2/1988 to the consignor. On making demand of compensation it was refused by the defendant on 7/3/1988 and by letter Ex.P/3. The claim has been rejected with an observation that Everest Building Product Limited may take up the matter with the insurance company. The intimation was given by the carrier on 29/2/1988 to the consignor. On making demand of compensation it was refused by the defendant on 7/3/1988 and by letter Ex.P/3. The claim has been rejected with an observation that Everest Building Product Limited may take up the matter with the insurance company. The insurance company appointed the surveyor and on his report dated 1/4/1988 made payment for damage of the goods. The letter of subrogation has been received from Everest Building Product Limited by the plaintiff and thereafter the payment was made. In view of above facts, it is apparent that the payment of compensation was made by the insurance company under a contract in between the defendant and plaintiff for an incident took place on 27/2/1988. Article 10 of the Limitation Act, which relates to the suit on contract and Article 23 which relates to payment of money paid for the defendant, are reproduced as under: Description of suit Period of Limitation Time from which period begins to run 10. Against a carrier for compensation for injuring goods Three years When the loss or injury occurs 23. For money payable to the plaintiff for the defendant Three years When the money is paid 8. In the facts of the present case, it is apparent that the suit has been filed against a carrier for recovery of the amount paid by the insurance company for damage of goods. In such a case the period of limitation runs when the date on injury occurs. The injury has occurred on 27/2/1988, however, from the said date the period of limitation is three years. The suit has been filed on 22/10/1991 after more than six months of expiry of such period of limitation. The arguments as advanced by learned counsel for the appellant that the suit shall fall within Article 23 of the Limitation Act, cannot be accepted because Article 23 deals with for reimbursement of amount, if any, paid, it is not against the carrier for damaging or injuring the goods. In such circumstances, in the opinion of this Court, Article 23 of the Limitation Act is having no application and the trial Court has rightly applied the provision of Article 10 of the Limitation Act while dismissing the suit as barred by limitation by the impugned judgment. 9. In such circumstances, in the opinion of this Court, Article 23 of the Limitation Act is having no application and the trial Court has rightly applied the provision of Article 10 of the Limitation Act while dismissing the suit as barred by limitation by the impugned judgment. 9. In the said facts the impact of the letter of subrogation is required to be seen. The letter of subrogation is a letter which is required to be issued by the person whose goods were injured. If that subrogation letter has been issued in favour of the insurance company, then from the said date the period of limitation against the defendant to whom the suit for recovery of the amount causing injury has been filed, would not be applicable. In the said context, the judgment of-the Apex Court Union of India vs. Sri Sarada Mills Ltd., AIR 1973 SC 281 is relevant which can be taken note of. 10. It is seen that a cross-objection under Order 41 Rule 22, CPC has been filed by the defendant which is not admitted but such cross-objection relates to the finding recorded on merit. Once the suit is barred by limitation as discussed herein above, the finding on merit if any recorded is having no relevance in the facts of the case. In such circumstances, the cross-objection is not required to be disposed of as it is not admitted. In view of forgoing, I am of the-considered opinion that the trial Court has rightly dismissed the suit on the ground of limitation applying the provision of Article 10 of the Limitation Act. 11. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the plaintiff/appellant is hereby dismissed upholding the judgment of trial Court. In the facts and circumstances of the case, parties shall bear their own cost.