Judgment 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 30/07/2005 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, South Goa at Margao (trial Judge, for short) in the Civil Suit No.12/2004. 2. The parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they appear in the cause title of the Civil Suit No.12/2004. 3. The plaintiff had filed the said suit for specific performance and to direct the defendants jointly and severally to pay to the plaintiff the subsidy amount of Rs.44,773/-, as promised and interest on the said sum at the rate of 10.5%, as from 1.01.2000 to 30.4.2004 amounting to Rs.20,372/-and also further interest at the same rate of 10.5% per annum on the amount of said subsidy until the date of final payment and for liquidated damages of Rs.25,000/-, on account of needless worry, anxiety and mental agony caused to the plaintiff due to utter careless attitude of the defendants. 4. The undisputed facts may be stated as under: The defendant no.1 is an organization established by the Government of Goa under Section 3 of the Goa, Daman and Diu, Khadi and Village Industries Board Act, 1965 (said Act,1965) with an aim to finance the village industries in the rural area, to update their traditional schemes and to generate self employment for persons in their own place of residence. The Government of India has established Khadi and Village Industries Commission (K.V.I.C.) at Mumbai for financing the said Khadi and Village Industries Boards throughout India and for monitoring the work of the Boards. One of the schemes devised by the K.V.I.C. and implemented by the defendant no. 1 is known as “Margin Money Scheme”, under which the defendant no. 1 finances the individuals in the rural areas. By application dated 19/8/1999, the plaintiff had submitted the proposal for purchase of a motor vehicle taxi unit (Maruti Van) and for grant of 25% subsidy/Margin Money and to sanction a loan of Rs.1,79,095/-. In the said proposal, the plaintiff stated that he has got potentiality to generate employment for only one person that is self. By application dated 19/8/1999, the plaintiff had submitted the proposal for purchase of a motor vehicle taxi unit (Maruti Van) and for grant of 25% subsidy/Margin Money and to sanction a loan of Rs.1,79,095/-. In the said proposal, the plaintiff stated that he has got potentiality to generate employment for only one person that is self. The defendant no.1, by letter dated 23/9/1999, addressed to the defendant no.3, forwarded the said proposal to the defendant no.3 stating that the bank is supposed to finance 100% amount of the cost indicated in the said letter, initially, and the beneficiaries under the Special Employment Programme (Margin Money Scheme) launched throughout the country by the Government of India, Ministry of India are entitled for 25% subsidy (Margin money). In this letter dated 23/9/1999 (Exhibit 29), the defendant no. 1 further informed the defendant no. 3 that the plaintiff's case was put up before the Task Force (Project Appraisal Committee) on 17/9/1999, which has recommended the project and that the Standing Finance committee (S.F.C.) of the defendant no.1 has given financial approval to the proposal to release the subsidy of Rs.44,773/-and directed to refer the case to the defendant no. 3, Bank, which has been chosen by the plaintiff. As per the said letter dated 23/9/1999 received by the defendant no.3, the loan was to be sanctioned to the plaintiff within a period of 21 days from the date of the said letter. However, the defendant no.3 sanctioned the loan to the plaintiff on 4/11/1999 and released the first installment of Rs.1,63,000/-by Demand Draft and on 23/11/1999 a further amount of Rs.14,895/-was released, thus making up the total loan of Rs.1,77,895/-to the plaintiff in the loan account No. KVIB/SBI/RTO/MTI/99/6, with the defendant no.3. The plaintiff purchased the said motor vehicle taxi unit (Maruti Van) and was repaying the loan in monthly installments. The defendant no. 3 refused to pay the subsidy/margin money to the plaintiff. 5. The case of the plaintiff, is as follows: On every occasion when he paid the monthly installment in the loan account, he had inquired with defendant no.3 whether the margin money was received and the plaintiff was informed that nothing was heard from defendant no.1. In March 2003, the defendant no.3 orally informed the plaintiff that the amount of subsidy has not been released by the office of defendant no.1. In March 2003, the defendant no.3 orally informed the plaintiff that the amount of subsidy has not been released by the office of defendant no.1. On 11/3/2003, the plaintiff addressed letter to the defendant no.1 inquiring as to why the subsidy of Rs.44,773/-had not been released and further requested the defendant no.1 to advise as to when the said subsidy would be released. The defendant no.1, however, did not even send a reply to the said letter. The plaintiff endorsed a copy of the said letter dated 11/3/2003 to the defendant no.3 with a request to follow up the matter. However, the defendant no.3 did not care to reply the said letter. Thereafter, on 17/4/2003, the plaintiff sent a Advocate’s notice to the defendant no.1 by registered post A/D calling upon them to inform the plaintiff as to what steps have been taken to release the said amount of subsidy and to forward the said subsidy amount to the State Bank of India, Santemol Branch and to treat the said letter as a statutory notice under Section 80 of C.P.C. The said letter was also addressed to the defendant no.2 by registered post A/D. The defendant no.1 by reply dated 6/5/2003 stated that they are unable to release the margin money since the K.V.I.C., Mumbai has declined to entertain the proposal. The plaintiff had made his final payment based on expected receipt of the subsidy of Rs.44,773/-which the defendant no.1 had sanctioned and since the same has been now refused, the plaintiff has to run into financial difficulty and has also lost peace of mind because of anxiety and worry. Hence the suit. 6. The case of the defendants no.1 and 2 is as follows: The defendant no.1 is only a recommendatory body under the said margin money scheme and as per Section 18 of the said Act, 1965, the defendant no.1 is bound by any direction given to it by the K.V.I.C. The recommendations of the defendant no.1 are also not binding on the bank to whom the loan proposal is forwarded and the concerned bank may reject the loan proposal. The sanction to release the subsidy amount is subject to sanction of funds from the bank as well as to the fulfillment of the terms and conditions of the scheme by the applicant. The sanction to release the subsidy amount is subject to sanction of funds from the bank as well as to the fulfillment of the terms and conditions of the scheme by the applicant. The recommendations of the defendant no.1 for grant of loan as also the subsidy/margin money under the scheme are always at the pre-sanction stage, whereas the release of subsidy is at the post-sanction stage. In case it is observed at the post-sanction stage that the terms and conditions of the scheme are not fulfilled by the beneficiary, the defendant no.1 is entitled to withhold the subsidy amount. As per the terms and conditions of the said scheme, the proposed project in respect of the unit submitted by the plaintiff was required to generate employment to one person for every Rs.50,000/-invested by the applicant in the form of fixed assets in the project. However, the said condition was not fulfilled by the plaintiff. The loan was not sanctioned by defendant no.3 within the stipulated period of 21 days due to which recommendation of defendant no.1 to consider the proposal of the plaintiff lost its validity. The plaintiff did not approach the defendant no.1 to extend the said period of 21 days. In the meantime, the defendant no1. by letter dated 17/4/2000 approached the K.V.I.C. for relaxing employment criteria under the said scheme for the State of Goa specially in the transport sector, but the K.V.I.C. in reply dated 12/5/2000 informed that it is not possible to grant any relaxation in this regard. As the defendant no.1 is bound by the directions as given to it from time to time by the K.V.I.C., the defendant no.1 cannot act on the proposal of the plaintiff for grant of subsidy/margin money. The claim of the plaintiff is otherwise barred by the law of limitation as the suit is filed beyond the limitation period of three years from 23/9/1999, i.e. from the date of the letter upon which the plaintiff's claim is based. 7. The case of the defendant no.3 is of denial of most of the averments made by the plaintiff. The defendant no.3 has specifically stated as under: The suit is not maintainable and filed, without any cause of action, only to extract money, by illegal means, from the defendants. 7. The case of the defendant no.3 is of denial of most of the averments made by the plaintiff. The defendant no.3 has specifically stated as under: The suit is not maintainable and filed, without any cause of action, only to extract money, by illegal means, from the defendants. The defendant no.3 is neither liable nor responsible to pay any amount to the plaintiff as alleged and the defendant no.3 is not connected with the payment of subsidy, though it was its duty to adjust the amount if the same was received from the defendant no.1. The suit is barred by law of limitation. The loan was sanctioned to the plaintiff under the margin money scheme, but the defendant no.3 did not receive the letter dated 23/9/1999 from the defendant no1. 8. The plaintiff examined himself as PW.1 and produced various documents on record. He also examined one witness by name Shri Abraham D'Cruz. The defendant no.1 has examined one Shri Laxmikant Naik Panvelkar, who is the District Officer and the constituted attorney of the defendant no.1, as Dw1. Lastly, the defendant no. 3 examined one Shri K. Parthasarathy, its Branch Manger, as DW.2. 9. Upon consideration of the entire evidence on record, the learned trial Judge held that the plaintiff has partly succeeded in proving his case regarding the release of subsidy by the defendants no.1 and 2 and his claim towards the interest, but failed to prove his case regarding the alleged damages. The suit, therefore, came to be decreed partly. The defendants no.1 and 2 have been jointly and severally held to be liable to release the subsidy amount of Rs. 44,773/-together with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the realization as well as costs of the suit. 10. The defendants no.1 and 2 being aggrieved by the impugned judgment, order and decree have filed the present appeal. 11. Heard arguments. Learned Additional Government Advocate Ms. Susan Linhares argued on behalf of the defendants no.1 and 2, whereas learned Advocate Mr. G. Teles argued on behalf of the plaintiff. None remained present for the defendant no.3. 12. Learned Advocate Ms. 11. Heard arguments. Learned Additional Government Advocate Ms. Susan Linhares argued on behalf of the defendants no.1 and 2, whereas learned Advocate Mr. G. Teles argued on behalf of the plaintiff. None remained present for the defendant no.3. 12. Learned Advocate Ms. Linhares, towards convincing this Court that the appeal ought to be allowed, has basically argued as follows: i) That the defendant no.1 is a recommendatory body and under Section 18 of the said Act, 1965, the defendant no.1 is bound by the directions given to it by the K.V.I.C., Mumbai and further that the recommendations of the defendant no.1 are also not binding on the bank. ii) That as per condition no.31 of the said scheme, the plaintiff had to generate employment to one person after every Rs.50,000/-invested by the plaintiff in the form of fixed assets in the project and this mandatory condition was not fulfilled by the plaintiff and that the defendant no.1 had approached the K.V.I.C., Mumbai for generally relaxing the employment criteria under the said scheme for the State of Goa especially in the transport section, which the K.V.I.C. refused to do and therefore, the defendant no.1 was not liable to release the subsidy amount. iii) That the recommendations for grant of loan and the subsidy were at pre-sanction stage, whereas the question of release of subsidy arises at the post-sanction stage, at which stage it is seen whether the terms and conditions of the scheme are fulfilled by the beneficiary and if the same are not fulfilled, then the defendant no.1 has right to withhold the subsidy amount. iv) That as per the recommendation letter dated 23/9/1999 addressed by the defendant no.1 to defendant no.3, the loan had to be sanctioned by the defendant no.3 within 21 days from the date of the said letter and this mandatory condition has not been fulfilled, due to which the validity of the said letter is lost. v) That the said original recommendation letter dated 23/9/1999 was addressed to the defendant no.3, whereas only a copy of the same was endorsed to the plaintiff and the defendant no.3 has denied having received the original, due to which there was no agreement between the defendant no.1 and the plaintiff or between the defendant no.1 and defendant no.3, which could be specifically performed. vi) In terms of Section 33 of the said Act, 1965, no suit lies against defendant no.1. vii) The suit ought to have been filed within a period of three years from the date of recommendation that is 23/9/1999 or from 15/10/1999, which is the date which falls 21 days after 23/9/1999 or from 4/11/1999, which is the date on which the defendant no.3 sanctioned the loan to the plaintiff and released the first installment. 13. Per contra, learned Advocate Shri G. Teles, on behalf of the plaintiff, argued that most of the contentions raised by the defendants no.1 and 2 in the appeal were also raised before the trial Judge and the trial judge has minutely and correctly dealt with each of the said contentions. He further argued that the other contentions raised, during the course of arguments, by the learned Advocate for the defendants no.1 and 2 were not pleaded in the written statement and have also not been raised as the grounds in appeal. He argued that there is neither illegality nor perversity in the impugned judgment and decree. Learned Advocate Shri Teles pointed out that the object of establishment of the defendant no.1 Board is to finance village industries in the rural area, to update their traditional schemes and to generate self employment for persons in their own place of residence. He, therefore, contended that, in view of the letter dated 23/9/1999, the Board was duty bound to give assistance to the plaintiff by releasing the subsidy amount, which it has not done. He argued that Section 33 of the said Act 1965 is not attracted as the action of defendant no.1 is not in good faith. He, therefore, concluded by stating that the suit has been rightly decreed and no interference is called for. 14. I have gone through the entire material on record in the light of the arguments canvassed by both the parties. 15. Let us deal with the first point as to whether defendant no.1 is only a recommendatory body and since is bound by the directions given to it by K.V.I.C. under Section 18 of the said Act, 1965 and further since its recommendations are not binding on the bank to whom the loan proposal is forwarded, it is not liable to pay the margin money to the plaintiff. There can be no dispute that under Section 18 of the said Act, 1965, the Board is bound by the directions given by K.V.I.C. to it from time to time. However, that does not mean that the defendant no.1 is only a recommendatory body with no power to sanction and release the subsidy. There is no general direction given by K.V.I.C. that the board shall not release subsidy to any person unless the K.V.I.C. directs to do so. In terms of Section 15(2) (d) of the said Act, 1965, the Board has the duty and function to help the people by providing them with work in their homes and to give loans and other form of monetary help to individuals or society or institutions on such terms as may be prescribed. Various powers are given to the Board under Sections 15, 16 and 17 of the said Act, 1965 and they are not subject to approval of K.V.I.C. Therefore, it is not correct to say that the defendant no.1 is merely a recommendatory body which cannot be questioned for its promises. 16. As per the terms and conditions of the Margin Money scheme, a duly filled application form along with supporting documents indicated in the application form are to be handed over to the office of the K.V.I.C. Accordingly, the plaintiff had submitted such an application along with supporting documents. The records reveal that it is as per the terms and conditions of the said scheme that the defendant no.1 put up the said proposal of the plaintiff before its Task Force(Project Appraisal) Committee on 17/9/1999 for examination. The said Task Force committee examined the proposal and recommended the project. Thereafter, the S.F.C. of the defendant no.1 gave the financial approval to the proposal for release of the subsidy of Rs.44,773/-. The S.F.C., therefore, gave the financial clearance to the Board that is defendant no.1 for sending the case to the bank chosen by the plaintiff for release of the loan. By letter dated 23/9/1999 addressed and forwarded by the defendant no.1 to the defendant no.3, the defendant no.1 recommended sanction of loan of Rs.1,79,095/-to the plaintiff within a period of 21 days from the date of the said letter. No doubt, the recommendation of the defendant no.1 to sanction loan of the plaintiff may not be binding on defendant no.3. The condition no. No doubt, the recommendation of the defendant no.1 to sanction loan of the plaintiff may not be binding on defendant no.3. The condition no. 12 of the Scheme provides that the bank shall observe its normal procedure for sanctioning the loan This is obviously because the bank is an independent body. However, once the defendant no.3, upon recommendation of the defendant no.1, has granted loan to the plaintiff under the said K.V.I.B. scheme, the promise of the defendant no.1 to release subsidy of Rs.44,773/-becomes binding on defendant no.1 to fulfill the same since the plaintiff, bonafidely acting on that promise, has availed of the loan from the defendant no.3. 17. Let us see whether the provision of condition no.31 of the said Scheme is mandatory and since the K.V.I.C., Mumbai, rejected the request to relax the employment criteria, the defendant no. 1 is not liable to pay the subsidy amount. It is true that as per the condition no.31 of the said Margin Money Scheme, the project should have potential to generate employment to one person after every Rs.50,000/-invested in fixed assets. The plaintiff, under the project profile submitted along with the application for loan, had clearly mentioned that his proposal has potentiality to generate employment only for one person that is for self. The plaintiff did not state anywhere that his project has potentiality to generate employment to one person after every Rs.50,000/-invested in fixed assets. The plaintiff had approached the defendant no.1 with a project for self employment with clean hands by stating clearly that his project would generate only self employment. If the condition no.31 of the Margin Money Scheme was mandatory, the Task Force Committee, initially after examining the plaintiff's application could have rejected the same without submitting the same to S.F.C. for final clearance. The S.F.C., at least, after examining the same, could have rejected financial approval and final clearance. The conduct of the defendant no.1 in clearing the plaintiff's proposal and forwarding the same to the defendant no.3 by recommending the sanction of loan itself proves that the said condition no.31 of the Margin Money Scheme regarding potentiality to generate employment to one person after every Rs.50,000/-invested in fixed assets was not mandatory. The conduct of the defendant no.1 in clearing the plaintiff's proposal and forwarding the same to the defendant no.3 by recommending the sanction of loan itself proves that the said condition no.31 of the Margin Money Scheme regarding potentiality to generate employment to one person after every Rs.50,000/-invested in fixed assets was not mandatory. Even if it is taken for granted for the sake of arguments that the said condition was mandatory, then it was the duty of the defendant no.1 to return back the plaintiff's application on the ground that it does not fulfill the criteria under condition no.31 of the Margin Money Scheme. The defendant no.1, in paragraph 5 of the written statement, has stated that by letter dated 23/9/1999, the plaintiff’s proposal, recommended by its Task Force (Project Appraisal) Committee and with final clearance given by S.F.C. to release the subsidy of Rs.44,773/-, was forwarded to the defendant no.3. By the said letter dated 23/9/1999, the defendant no.1 recommended to sanction to the plaintiff loan of Rs.1,79,095/-. It is based on this promise of defendant no.1 that the plaintiff availed of the loan under the Margin Money Scheme. The plaintiff did not approach the defendant no.3-Bank directly. Condition no.31 of the Margin Money Scheme provides that the project should have potentiality to generate employment to one person after every Rs.50,000/-invested in fixed assets. It is not said any where that if the project does not have potentiality to generate such employment, the loan shall not be recommended and subsidy shall not be granted. Therefore the condition no. 31 of the said scheme cannot be said to be mandatory. 18. As far as provision of Section 18 of the said Act, 1965, is concerned, the defendant no.1 should have taken care by sending the letter to the K.V.I.C. for relaxing the employment criteria under the said scheme, before final clearance of release of subsidy and recommendation of loan to the plaintiff. 19. Regarding the contention of the learned counsel for the defendants no.1 and 2 that the Board considered the proposal of the plaintiff only at the pre-sanction stage and that the Board was entitled to withhold the subsidy at the post sanction stage, the same has no legal sanctity. 19. Regarding the contention of the learned counsel for the defendants no.1 and 2 that the Board considered the proposal of the plaintiff only at the pre-sanction stage and that the Board was entitled to withhold the subsidy at the post sanction stage, the same has no legal sanctity. There is no provision in the said Act, 1965 or the Rules of 1967, framed under the said Act,1965, as also in the said Margin Money Scheme for examination and provisional approval at presanction stage and for re-examination or reconsideration of the proposal at post-sanction stage. Even the letter dated 23/9/1999, which is at Exhibit 29 does not say that release of subsidy was subject to further consideration at post-sanction stage or that it is subject to approval by K.V.I.C., Mumbai. On the contrary, paragraph 6 of the said letter dated 23/9/1999 reveals that the S.F.C. of the Board had given a final approval to the proposal of the plaintiff to release the subsidy/margin money of Rs.44,773/-and had directed the defendant no. 1 to refer the case of the plaintiff to the defendant no.3-Bank, which was chosen by the plaintiff. 20. Condition no.23 of the Margin Money Scheme gives power to the Board to revoke the subsidy amount kept in fixed deposit receipt in case the beneficiary fails to utilize the funds to the satisfaction of K.V.I.B. Once the Board accepts the project profile and agrees to sanction subsidy, it has to forward the subsidy amount to the concerned bank to be kept in fixed deposit receipt in the name of the beneficiary for a minimum period of two years and thereafter to adjust the same along with interest accrued thereon towards the repayment of last installment of the loan. Revocation of such subsidy deposit can be done only if the beneficiary does not utilize the funds to the satisfaction of the Board, which is not the case in the present matter. Therefore, the defendant no. 1, in the present case, could not have denied its liability to pay the subsidy amount to the plaintiff. 21. The next point raised by the defendants no.1 and 2 is about the sanction of loan by the defendant no.3 after the expiry of period of 21 days stipulated by letter dated 23/9/1999. Therefore, the defendant no. 1, in the present case, could not have denied its liability to pay the subsidy amount to the plaintiff. 21. The next point raised by the defendants no.1 and 2 is about the sanction of loan by the defendant no.3 after the expiry of period of 21 days stipulated by letter dated 23/9/1999. As per the recommendation letter dated 23/9/1999, it was informed to the defendant no.3 that as per the terms formulated by the Lead Bank it is necessary to sanction loan within 21 days time from the date of issue of the letter to the party. It is true that the defendant no.3 sanctioned and released the first installment of Rs.1,63,000/-on 4/11/1999, which is admittedly after 21 days from the date of receipt of the letter. It is the contention of learned Advocate Ms. Linhares that because of not sanctioning of the loan within the said stipulated period of 21 days, the recommendation of the defendant no.1 has lost its validity. She pointed out that the even the plaintiff did not approach the defendant no.1 to extend the said period of 21 days. If the provisions of the said Margin Money Scheme are perused it can be seen that there is no condition of 21 days time put on the Lead Bank to sanction the loan. Even the said Act, 1965 or the said Rules of 1967 do not put such condition. It was a condition put by the defendant no.3 in the recommendation letter. It is not correct to say that defendant no.3 did not inform the defendant no.1 about the loan availed of by the plaintiff within 21 days of sanctioning the loan. The defendant no.3 sent a communication dated 9/11/1999 to the defendant no.1 informing that the loan has been sanctioned to the plaintiff. The above fact has been admitted by DW.2. But the defendant no.1 did not inform the defendant no.3 that the loan be treated as personal loan. The defendant no.1 also did not write to the plaintiff that since the loan was not sanctioned within 21 days, the recommendation letter of the defendant no.1 lost its validity and that the subsidy would not be released. The defendant no.3 cannot be under the control of the plaintiff. The defendant no.1 also did not write to the plaintiff that since the loan was not sanctioned within 21 days, the recommendation letter of the defendant no.1 lost its validity and that the subsidy would not be released. The defendant no.3 cannot be under the control of the plaintiff. It is to be kept in mind that by letter dated 17/4/2000, the defendant no.1 approached the K.V.I.C., Mumbai for relaxing the employment criteria under the said scheme for the State of Goa especially in the transport sector. Therefore, indirectly, the defendant no.1 had relaxed the said condition to sanction the loan within 21 days. As per the Margin Money Scheme, the bank is to be chosen by the beneficiary and the said bank is free to observe its normal procedure for sanctioning the loan. As per condition no.12 of the said Scheme, it is only expected that the bank conveys its decision within three weeks (that is 21 days) from the receipt of the application of the proposal. In the recommendation letter dated 23/9/1999, though it was mentioned that the loan should be sanctioned within 21 days, from the date of the said letter it was not specified that the loan sanctioned after 21 days shall not be considered to be under the K.V.I.B. Scheme. Therefore, it has been rightly held by the learned trial Judge that the said condition of 21 days mentioned in the recommendation is only directory condition and not a mandatory one. 22. Let us now see whether there is no agreement between defendant no.1 and the plaintiff or between defendant no.1 and defendant no.3, as contended by learned Advocate Ms. Linhares. There can be no dispute that the loan sanctioned to the plaintiff is under the said Margin Money Scheme. Once the defendant no.1 has admitted in its pleadings that it has forwarded the recommendation letter dated 23/9/1999 to the defendant no.3 and the copy of the same to the plaintiff, the question of defendant no.3 denying the receipt of the original letter does not arise. It is pertinent to note that the defendant no.3 has admitted that it had sanctioned to the plaintiff the loan under special employment programme/Margin Money Scheme launched by the defendant no.1. It is pertinent to note that the defendant no.3 has admitted that it had sanctioned to the plaintiff the loan under special employment programme/Margin Money Scheme launched by the defendant no.1. Though DW.2, the Branch Manger of the defendant no.3, initially, stated that the bank considered the proposal of the plaintiff as a personal loan and not under the said scheme, however, subsequently, he changed the stand and stated that the loan granted to the plaintiff was under the K.V.I.B. scheme. Even the loan account bears no. KVIB/SBF/RTO/MTL/99/6. A copy of the letter dated 23/9/1999 sent to the plaintiff which is Exhibit 29 bears the original signature of the Chief Executive Officer of the defendant no.1. Thus, merely because the original letter regarding sanction of subsidy was not sent to the plaintiff, it cannot be held that there was no agreement between the defendant no.1 and the plaintiff. 23. The ground that the recommendation letter dated 23/9/1999 was addressed to the defendant no.3 and only a copy of the same was endorsed to the plaintiff and therefore, there is no contract between the defendant no.1 and the plaintiff has been raised for the first time in the appeal. Such a defence has not been pleaded by the defendant no.1 in its written statement. 24. There is therefore no force in the contention of the defendants no. 1 and 2 that there was no agreement between the defendant no. 1 and the plaintiff, regarding payment of subsidy money of Rs. 44,773/-by the defendant no. 1 to the plaintiff. 25. The next point to be considered is whether in view of Section 33 of the said Act, 1965, the suit was liable to be dismissed, as not maintainable. This objection was not taken by the defendant no.1 in its written statement. In the appeal memo also, this objection has not been taken. 26. Section 33 of the said Act, 1965 provides that no suit, prosecution or other legal proceedings shall lie against any person for anything which is in good faith done or purported to be done by or under this Act. Since the action of the defendant no.1 is not in good faith, Section 33 of the said Act, 1965 is not attracted. 27. The last point to be considered is whether the suit is barred by the law of limitation. Since the action of the defendant no.1 is not in good faith, Section 33 of the said Act, 1965 is not attracted. 27. The last point to be considered is whether the suit is barred by the law of limitation. In this regard, by the said letter dated 23/9/1999, the defendant no.1 informed the plaintiff that the S.F.C. of the defendant no.1 has given financial approval to the proposal to release subsidy of Rs.44,773/-. In this letter, the date of release of subsidy was not fixed. Hence, the cause of action for the plaintiff would start from the date of intimation of refusal to release the said subsidy to him. The defendant no.1, by letter dated 17/4/2000, had requested the K.V.I.C., Mumbai to relax the employment criteria and by letter dated 12/5/2000, the said commission informed the defendant no.1 that it is not possible to grant any relaxation. It was thereafter that the defendant no.1 decided not to release the subsidy to the plaintiff and for the first time by letter dated 20/9/2001 (Exhibit 43) informed the defendant no.3 that the Board is unable to release the subsidy. The said letter Exhibit 43 was in answer to the letter No. S/40 dated 21/7/2001 sent by the defendant no.3 to the defendant no.1. However, the plaintiff was not informed by any one about the said refusal. Only after the communication dated 6/5/2003 which is at Exhibit 23, received by the plaintiff from the defendant no.1, that the plaintiff came to know about the said refusal. This letter at Exhibit 23 was sent to the plaintiff in answer to the plaintiff's letter dated 17/4/2003. In terms of Article 54 of the Limitation Act, a suit for specific performance of a contract has to be filed within three years from the date fixed for the performance or if no such date is fixed then from the date when the plaintiff has noticed that performance is refused in this regard. The learned trial Judge has placed reliance in K. Sambasiva Rao Vs. P. Bangaru Raju (AIR 1985 Andhra Pradesh 393), wherein it has been held that when the agreement does not stipulate the date for performance, the suit filed within three years from the date of refusal has to be considered within time. Therefore, the suit is not barred by law of limitation. 28. P. Bangaru Raju (AIR 1985 Andhra Pradesh 393), wherein it has been held that when the agreement does not stipulate the date for performance, the suit filed within three years from the date of refusal has to be considered within time. Therefore, the suit is not barred by law of limitation. 28. In the light of the above discussion, the impugned judgment and decree is in accordance with the settled principles of law based on correct appreciation of the entire evidence on record and defendants no.1 and 2 have failed to show any ground warranting interference. 29. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs.