JUDGMENT : V.K. Sharma, J. The plaintiff-Company, A.B. Tools (P) Ltd. and its Managing Director have filed the present suit against the defendants, The Reserve Bank of India and its General Manager (Estates), for recovery of Rs. 26 Lacs (Twenty Six Lacs only). 2. Admitted case of the parties is that vide 'deed of lease and conveyance', dated 08.06.1995, Ex.PX (colly.) (pages 2 to 168 of the file containing the documents filed by the plaintiffs), plaintiff No.1 had sold to defendant No.1 blocks No. C.2 and C.3 containing 8 flats in the Valley Side Estate, measuring approximately 981.84 sq. mtrs (10,565 sq. ft.) of built up area along with attic in the said blocks measuring approximately 247.63 sq. mtrs. (2665 sq. ft), together with lease of the land measuring 600 sq. mtrs. (approx.) underneath and appurtenant to blocks No. C.2 and C.3, situate at Station Ward, Bada Shimla, Tehsil and District Shimla (H.P.), for a sum of Rs. 1,01,07,000/- (Rupees One Crore One Lac Seven Thousand only). 3. The claim set up by the plaintiffs rests on clause (xviii) (pages 146-147) of the 'agreement dated 7.12.1994, for purchase of ready built blocks No. C.2 and C.3, containing 8 apartments at the Valley Side Estate, Shimla, H.P.', which forms part of the 'deed of lease and conveyance' Ex.PX, dated 8.6.1995 and is at pages 138 to 155. DW-1 Shri Pankaj Arora has also stated in chief examination itself that agreement dated 7.12.1994 formed part of the said deed. Clause (xviii) reads as under:- "(xviii) That the Vendors after one year of the execution of the Sale deed and Lease Deed in favour of the Purchaser, shall not be bound in any way to carry out repair or maintenance work of the property hereby intended to be sold. After the period of one year and till alternate arrangements are made by the flat owners Association to be formed for this purpose, if required by the Purchaser, the vendors shall look after and maintain the common areas, services, green areas etc. at the cost of all the flat owners of the Valley Side Estate. The Vendors shall maintain, at its cost, all such areas and services during the defects liability period of one year from the date of the execution of the Sale Deed and the Lease Deed." 4. at the cost of all the flat owners of the Valley Side Estate. The Vendors shall maintain, at its cost, all such areas and services during the defects liability period of one year from the date of the execution of the Sale Deed and the Lease Deed." 4. The suit is contested by the defendants on preliminary objections regarding maintainability , locus standi, cause of action, limitation, want of notice under Section 80 CPC, and being abuse of process of law, false, frivolous, vexatious and vague. On merits, it is pleaded that the defendants are not liable to pay any maintenance charges, as claimed by the plaintiffs. In this regard, reliance is placed on clause (vi) (pages 36 and 37) of the 'deed of lease and conveyance' Ex.PX, dated 8.6.1995, which is to the following effect:- "(vi) THAT the Vendors hereby grant to the Purchaser the rights pertaining to (i) use of the main access road connecting the Valley Side Estate to the Municipal and main road, (ii) use of the common green areas, (iii) maintenance of Electrical cables water supply and drainage lines, sewer and storm water drains, (iv) use of internal path ways together with the use of steps connecting the pathways with the main access road on both ends, more particularly delineated and marked green in Annexure 'P' and 'Q' (v) access to common facilities and use thereof etc. without any further consideration whatsoever over and above the aforesaid total consideration of Rs. 1,01,07,000/- (Rupees One Crore One Lakh Seven Thousand Only)." 5. In replication, the plaintiffs have refuted the stand on behalf of the defendants and instead reiterated their own case set up in the plaint. 6. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:- "1. Whether in terms of the agreement, whereby the suit property was sold to the defendants, the defendants are liable to pay certain charges for the maintenance of roads and common facilities, as alleged? OPP. 2. If issue No.1 is proved, whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the suit amount or any other amount of money on account of the charges, referred to in issue No. 1? OPP 3. Whether the claim of the plaintiffs is barred by time? OPD 4. OPP. 2. If issue No.1 is proved, whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the suit amount or any other amount of money on account of the charges, referred to in issue No. 1? OPP 3. Whether the claim of the plaintiffs is barred by time? OPD 4. Whether defendants are Government, within the meaning of Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure and, hence, notice under the aforesaid provision was required to be served before the institution of the suit and no such notice having been served, whether the plaint is liable to be rejected? OPD. 5. Whether the plaint lacks material particulars, especially the details of the claim? If so, its effect? OPD 6. Whether the plaintiffs are estopped to file the present suit by their acts of omission and commission and conduct of their functionaries? OPD 7. Relief." 7. The parties have led evidence. I have heard their learned Senior Counsel/Counsel and perused the records. 8. For the reasons to be recorded hereinafter my findings on the above issues are as under:- Issue No. 1 : Yes. Issue No. 2 : Partly yes. Issue No. 3 : Partly yes. Issue No. 4 : No. Issue No. 5 : Redundant. Issue No. 6 : No. Issue No.7 : Suit partly decreed vide operative part of the judgment. Reasons For Findings Issue Nos. 1, 2 and 3 9. All these issues being interconnected requiring common appreciation of law and facts are taken up together for disposal and decision. 10. According to the plaintiffs, after lapse of one year of the execution of 'deed of lease and conveyance' Ex.PX, dated 08.06.1995 and till alternate arrangements were made by the flat owners association to be formed for this purpose, if required by the purchaser, the plaintiffs were to look after and maintain common areas, services, green areas etc. at the cost of all the flat owners of Valley Side Estate. Admittedly, plaintiff No.1 was to maintain at its cost, all such areas and services during the defects liability period of one year from the date of execution of 'deed of lease and conveyance' Ex.PX, dated 08.06.1995. at the cost of all the flat owners of Valley Side Estate. Admittedly, plaintiff No.1 was to maintain at its cost, all such areas and services during the defects liability period of one year from the date of execution of 'deed of lease and conveyance' Ex.PX, dated 08.06.1995. It is not in dispute that no such flat owners association has been formed till date, though as per clause (xix) at page 147, defendant No.1 had undertaken to become a member of such Association as and when the same is formed for proper upkeep and maintenance etc. of the estate. A demand for maintenance charges @ Rs. 1058/- per flat per month was raised by plaintiff No.1 to defendant No.1 soon after execution of 'deed of lease and conveyance' Ex.PX, dated 08.06.1995, vide letter (pages 263-264) dated 10.06.1995, Ex.PW-1/B, stating that it shall start billing the defendants as per clause (xviii) with effect from 08.06.1995; that is, from the date of registration of 'deed of lease and conveyance' Ex.PX, dated 08.06.1995, little realising that no such claim was tenable for a period of one year to be reckoned from 08.06.1995 to 07.06.1996. This position was asserted by the defendants vide letter dated 28.07.1995, Ex.PW-1/C, which by necessary implication amounts to implied admission that such charges were liable to be paid after lapse of one year or say on and with effect from 08.06.1996. The error was rectified by plaintiff No.1 vide letter dated 02.08.1995, Ex.PW-1/ZB. Accordingly, vide letter dated 17.12.1996, Ex.PW-1/ZC, a fresh demand @ Rs. 1058/- per flat per month, i.e Rs. 8464/- for eight flats was raised for the period 08.06.1996 to 08.12.1996 (six months), wrongly stating the period as seven months at Rs. 59,248/-, which in fact ought to have been Rs. 50,784/-. In reply to this letter, the defendants wrote letter dated 03.05.1997, Ex.DX, to plaintiff No.1, requesting to send its representative for discussion. 11. Thereafter a series of correspondence was exchanged between the parties from 06.05.1997 to 17.09.2005, by way of letters/reminders Ex.PW-1/E to Ex.PW-1/H, Ex.PW-1/J to Ex.PW-1/Z, Ex.PW-1/ZA and Ex.PW-1/ZB. 12. 50,784/-. In reply to this letter, the defendants wrote letter dated 03.05.1997, Ex.DX, to plaintiff No.1, requesting to send its representative for discussion. 11. Thereafter a series of correspondence was exchanged between the parties from 06.05.1997 to 17.09.2005, by way of letters/reminders Ex.PW-1/E to Ex.PW-1/H, Ex.PW-1/J to Ex.PW-1/Z, Ex.PW-1/ZA and Ex.PW-1/ZB. 12. Letter dated 6.7.2004, Ex.PW-1/V written by the plaintiffs to the defendants is to the following effect:- A B Builders (Unit of A B Tools Pvt. Ltd.) Registered Date 6th July, 2004 To The General Manager, Reserve Bank of India, Central Vista, Sector-17, Chandigarh.160 017 Subject:- Bank's Holiday Home/Maintenance charges thereof Sir, Kindly refer to our Regd. Letter dated 26th May, 2004 on the subject cited above. So far we have not heard from your esteemed office in the matter. We like to apprise you that we are also installing a lift/escalator in the new block for the use of the residents of this complex, it shall be connecting the road level to the path below. This shall be indeed very convenient for the guests of your Holiday Home in particular. We shall be indeed obliged if the matter regarding the maintenance charges pending for years all together be settled at your earliest convenience. We are looking forward for furtherance of our fruitful association in developing guest houses in the State of Himachal Pradesh. Thanking you, Yours faithfully, For A.B. Builders (Unit of A.B. Tools (P) Limited) Managing Director" 13. While acknowledging the above letter dated 06.07.2004, Ex.PW-1/V, the defendants vide letter dated 20.09.2004, Ex.PW-1/X, informed the plaintiffs that the matter was still under consideration and as and when any decision is taken, they will be informed accordingly. However, when even after six months nothing was heard from the defendants, the plaintiffs requested the defendants vide letter dated 22.01.2005, Ex.PW-1/Y, to settle the matter at the earliest. However, the defendants vide letter dated 08.02.2005, Ex.PW-1/Z repudiated the claim of the plaintiffs, which stand was reiterated by them vide letter dated 17.09.2005, Ex.PW-1/ZD, sent to the plaintiffs in reply to their detailed letter dated 4/18-6- 2005, Ex.PW-1/ZA, whereby the plaintiffs had once again reasserted their claim. 14. However, the defendants vide letter dated 08.02.2005, Ex.PW-1/Z repudiated the claim of the plaintiffs, which stand was reiterated by them vide letter dated 17.09.2005, Ex.PW-1/ZD, sent to the plaintiffs in reply to their detailed letter dated 4/18-6- 2005, Ex.PW-1/ZA, whereby the plaintiffs had once again reasserted their claim. 14. Now while adverting to the defence raised on behalf of the defendants based on clause (vi), of the 'deed of leased and conveyance', Ex.PX (pages 36 and 37), which stands already extracted here-in-before at page 3 of this judgment, it would be seen that rights of user/maintenance viz. (i) use of the main access road connecting the Valley Side Estate to the Municipal and main road, (ii) use of the common green areas, (iii) maintenance of Electrical cables, water supply and drainage lines, sewer and storm water drains, (iv) use of internal path ways together with the use of steps connecting the pathways with the main access road on both ends, more particularly delineated and marked green in Annexure 'P' and 'Q' (v) access to common facilities and use thereof etc., were granted by plaintiff No.1 to defendant No.2 without any further consideration whatsoever over and above the aforesaid total consideration of Rs. 1,01,07,000/- (Rupees One Crore One Lakh Seven Thousand Only). On a plain reading of clause (vi) it is apparent that such rights of user and maintenance were implicit in the property sold and no further consideration was to be charged by plaintiff No.1 from defendant No.1 on these counts, but that would not mean that in future no expenditure was to be incurred on maintenance of such facilities and the additional facilities, such as, lift etc. provided by the plaintiffs thereafter, as admitted by DW-1 Shri Pankaj Arora during cross examination. Now arises the question as to who was to incur such maintenance charges. From a conjoint reading of clauses (xvii), (xviii) and (xix) of the aforesaid 'agreement for purchase of ready built block Nos. C.2 and C.3 containing 8 apartments at the Valley Side Estate, Shimla, Himachal Pradesh' , (pages 138-155), which forms part of the 'deed of lease and conveyance' , dated 08.06.1995, Ex. From a conjoint reading of clauses (xvii), (xviii) and (xix) of the aforesaid 'agreement for purchase of ready built block Nos. C.2 and C.3 containing 8 apartments at the Valley Side Estate, Shimla, Himachal Pradesh' , (pages 138-155), which forms part of the 'deed of lease and conveyance' , dated 08.06.1995, Ex. PX and clause (vi) of the said deed, it is manifest that all such facilities were to be maintained by the plaintiffs for a period of one year from the execution of the 'deed of lease and conveyance', dated 8.6.1995, Ex.PX, free of cost and thereafter till alternative arrangements were made by the Flat Owners Association to be formed for this purpose, if required by the purchaser, the vendors (plaintiff No.1) was to look after and maintain the common areas, services, green areas etc. at the cost of all the flat owners of the Valley Side Estate, including defendant No.1. 15. Plaintiff No.2, Shri Satish Jain, while appearing as PW-1 has stated in quite categorical terms that "we did not provide all the services gratuitously nor we gave any undertaking of this kind to any of the residents". Even the defendants have not raised any such plea that plaintiff No.1 was providing such facilities gratuitously. 16. Against the foregoing background, the plaintiffs are relying upon Section 70 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 (extracted below), in support of their claim against the defendants:- "70. Obligation of person enjoying benefit of non-gratuitous act.- Where a person lawfully does anything for another person, or delivers anything to him, not intending to do so gratuitously, and such other person enjoys the benefit thereof, the latter is bound to make compensation to the former in respect of, or to restore, the thing so done or delivered. 2 Illustrations (a) A, a tradesman, leaves goods at B' s house by mistake. B treats the goods as his own. He is bound to pay A for them. (b) A saves B' s property from fire. A is not entitled to compensation from B, if the circumstances show that he intended to act gratuitously." 17. DW-1 Shri Pankaj Arora has though stated that "we have annual maintenance agreement (AMC) for maintaining our part of the premises from the date of sale deed", yet no such AMC has been brought on record and proved in accordance with law. DW-1 Shri Pankaj Arora has though stated that "we have annual maintenance agreement (AMC) for maintaining our part of the premises from the date of sale deed", yet no such AMC has been brought on record and proved in accordance with law. Even if the defendants were maintaining their part of the premises from the date of sale deed by way of any such AMC, it relates only to their part of the premises, that is, eight flats in blocks C.2 and C.3 and cannot by any stretch of imagination be said to be relating to maintenance of the aforesaid common areas and facilities, which require incurring of considerable expenditure on continuous basis. 18. The contention raised on behalf of the defendants that Flat Owners Association was to be formed by plaintiff No.1 cannot be taken on its face value. True it is that out of the 46 flats in the aforesaid estate known as Valley Side Estate, defendant No.1 has purchased 8 flats. It appears that 2 flats have been retained by the plaintiff- Company. Owners/lease holders of the remaining 36 flats are paying maintenance charges to the plaintiffs as stated by PW-1 Shri Satish Jain and PWs-2 to 5, namely Shri Ravinder Kumar Jain, Shri Prashant Rai, Shri Alok Jain and Shri Ramesh Mirchandani. Thus, it can be safely concluded that it was the joint responsibility of the flat owners to form the Association of which defendant No.1 had also agreed to be a member as per clause (xix) of the agreement at page 147, as already noticed. However, admittedly no such association has been formed so far. Thus, when other owners/lease holders are paying maintenance charges, the defendants cannot avoid liability to pay such charges to the plaintiffs, who are incurring expenditure on periodical maintenance of such facilities on month to month basis and more so in view of Section 70 of the Indian Contract Act, as according to the plaintiffs, such facilities were not being provided by plaintiff No.1 free of charges. Still further, as already held, that there is implied admission on the part of the defendants to pay such charges beyond the defect liability period of one year or say with effect from 07.06.1996, vide their letter dated 28.07.1995, Ex.PW-1/C. 19. Still further, as already held, that there is implied admission on the part of the defendants to pay such charges beyond the defect liability period of one year or say with effect from 07.06.1996, vide their letter dated 28.07.1995, Ex.PW-1/C. 19. Now arises the question as to at what rate the plaintiffs are entitled for payment of charges for the aforesaid facilities from the defendants and for which period. 20. By an order dated 04.07.2007, in OMP No. 142 of 2007, the plaintiffs were permitted to amend para 13 of the plaint to include the details with regard to the claim set up by them. After amendment para 13 of the plaint reads as under:- "That the plaintiffs are entitled to the amount expended/spent by the plaintiffs on the maintenance of the common areas/facilities provide to the entire estate holders which amounts have been paid by all other residents of the Estate except the defendants who, having enjoyed the entire facilities, are still not paying the amount due and outstanding to the plaintiffs. The claim of the plaintiffs was finally rejected on 17.9.2005. The plaintiffs claim a sum of Rs. 26 lacs. This amount consists of both principal amount due and interest of the period after one year from the date of execution of Deed of Conveyance and Lease. The proportionate share of the defendants worked out to Rs. 8464/- from the defendants per month on account of the share of the defendants of the maintenance charges paid by the plaintiffs. The interest is claimed at the prevailing market rate on compounding basis. The plaintiff claims an amount of Rs. 1,01,568/- per year on account of maintenance, which is due and payable by the defendants to the plaintiff @ Rs. 1058/- per month per flat, for 8 flats, transferred to the defendants from 8-6-1996 till 7-6-1999 along with commercial interest @ 21% p.a. with quarterly rests. The rate of maintenance was increased from 8-6-1999 from Rs. 1058/- per flat per month to Rs. 1089/- per flat per month. Therefore, the plaintiff is further entitled to receive from the defendants maintenance @ Rs. 1089/- per month per flat which comes to Rs. 1,04,544/- per year along with interest @ 21% p.a. with quarterly rests. On such leases, the total amount due as on date of the suit comes to Rs. 26,95,642.94 but the plaintiff is restricting his claim to Rs. 1089/- per month per flat which comes to Rs. 1,04,544/- per year along with interest @ 21% p.a. with quarterly rests. On such leases, the total amount due as on date of the suit comes to Rs. 26,95,642.94 but the plaintiff is restricting his claim to Rs. 26,00,000/- only." 21. Before adverting to the question as to at what rate the plaintiffs are entitled for maintenance charges from the defendants and for which period, it shall be appropriate to first decide the question of limitation. The following averments have been set up on behalf of the plaintiffs in this regard vide para 14 of the plaint:- "That the cause of action arose in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants on various dates specially on 17.12.1994 when the agreement was executed between the plaintiffs and defendants on 8th June, 1995 when the lease and conveyance deed was executed between the plaintiffs and defendants and on various dates when the defendants acknowledged and accepted the fact that the estate had to be maintained and the common facilities were being enjoyed regularly the defendants, on 10.6.1995, 28.7.1995, 2.8.1995, 17.12.1996, 6.5.1997, 21.2.1998, 2.1.1999, 18.1.1999, 12.2.1999, 5.5.1999, 7.6.1999, 14.8.1999, 23.10.1999, 6.11.1999, 7.12.1999, 28.4.2000, 19.5.2000, 24.10.2000, 23.1.2001, 26.5.2004, 6.7.2004. 10.9.2004, 20.9.2004, 22.1.2005, 8.2.2005, 4/18.6.2005 when the letters were addressed by the plaintiff to the defendants or by the defendants to the plaintiffs and finally on 17.9.2005 when the claim of the plaintiff was rejected by the defendants when the right to use arose on the rejection of the claim as in none of the previous communications the claim of the plaintiffs had been rejected rather the plaintiffs were assured that the claim would be accepted. The cause of action still continues to subsist in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants. The cause is a continuing cause with each day on which the defendants are enjoying the facilities provided by the plaintiffs without bearing the proportionate cost payable by them." 22. According to the plaintiffs limitation in this case would be governed by Section 22 of the Limitation Act, 1963, which reads as follows:- "22. The cause is a continuing cause with each day on which the defendants are enjoying the facilities provided by the plaintiffs without bearing the proportionate cost payable by them." 22. According to the plaintiffs limitation in this case would be governed by Section 22 of the Limitation Act, 1963, which reads as follows:- "22. Continuing breaches and torts.- In the case of a continuing breach of contract or in the case of a continuing tort, a fresh period of limitation begins to run at every moment of the time during which the breach or the tort, as the case may be, continues." 23. In support of their contention on the point of limitation the plaintiffs have relied upon a judgment of this court dated 17.09.2010, in OMP No. 490 of 2010 of Civil Suit No. 63 of 2005, M/s Shubh Timb Steel Ltd. v. State of H.P. & another, wherein vide paras 28 to 30, it has been held as under:- "28. This in a nutshell is the principle applicable for invoking/adjudicating the plea of limitation. Aside, from the fact that I do not find any pleading from the Arbitrator, yet there is a categoric finding that continuing wrong could be redressed by the State as there was ample supply of timber of various species, which has been adjudicated as a fact. In these circumstances, Section 22 would be attracted and it cannot be said that successive action should and ought to have been brought by the respondent against the State. Though, as laid down by the Supreme Court, plea of limitation should and ought to have been taken by certainty both in pleadings and evidence. I do not find any such plea having been raised before the decision of the Arbitrator. But nonetheless I have adjudicated on the facts as disclosed on record. Having held that the respondents were responsible for continuing breach, which would be covered within the meaning of Section 22, it cannot be said that the case of the respondent was barred by limitation. 29. I notice some other submissions which have been made by the parties before me. It has been urged by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent that the jurisdiction of this Court debars from examining the pleas now raised in these objections as the Court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon them. 30. 29. I notice some other submissions which have been made by the parties before me. It has been urged by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent that the jurisdiction of this Court debars from examining the pleas now raised in these objections as the Court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon them. 30. Limitation is a point of law, despite the Supreme Court's embargo. I have adjudicated on the respective merits of the contentions of the parties. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents has relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in State of UP v. Ram Nath International 1996 (1) SCC 18 , to urge that only ground under Section 30 of the Act can be urged for challenging the award and that this Court cannot consider the view that the arbitrator is justified. (See Jivarajvhai v. Chintamanrao AIR 1965 SC 214 ) Misreading, misconstruction or misappreciation of material cannot be a ground for setting aside the award, nor an erroneous decision to be considered as misconduct. (See State of Rajasthan v. Puri Construction 1994 (6) SCC 485 , FCI v. Joginder Pal Mohinder Pal, AIR 1989 SC 1263 and Rajasthan State Mine v. Eastern Engineering 1999 (9) SCC 283 ). Learned counsel also submits that the correctness of the award cannot be examined. (See Puri Construction v. UOI AIR 1989 SC 777 , T.N. Water Supply v. Satyanarayana, 2007 (10) SCC 468 ). All these principles are by now well settled. I have not converted these proceedings into appellate proceedings nor re-appreciated the material and evidence on record. No other point has been urged. In these circumstances, I find no merit in the objections, which are accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs." 24. However, since the facts of the case, M/s Shubh Timb Steel Ltd. v. State of H.P. & another, relied upon on behalf of the defendants and those of the case in hand are at quite divergence, they cannot seek any support from the said decision for the reasons that in M/s Shubh Timb Steel Ltd. the case was based on a contract and objection regarding limitation was not taken at any stage of the litigation between the parties before the arbitrator or in earlier litigation between them. To the contrary, in the present case the plaintiffs have based their claim under Section 70 of the Indian Contract Act, which lays down 'obligation of person enjoying benefit of non-gratuitous act'. Secondly, the objection regarding limitation has been raised on behalf of the defendants in their written statement at the very initial stage. 25. As the liability to pay maintenance charges by the defendants to the plaintiffs for the aforesaid facilities is to be reckoned from 7.6.1996, the period of limitation shall have to be taken from that day. Since the plaintiffs have based their claim under Section 70 of the Indian Contract Act, to my mind, limitation in this case shall be governed by Section 113 of the Limitation Act, which is extracted below:- Description of suit Period of Time from limitation which period begins to run "Any suit for which no period of limitation is provided elsewhere in this Schedule." Three years When the right to sue accrues. 26. The right to sue in this case had first accrued on 8.1.1996. The suit ought to have been filed on or before 6.6.1999. Though, prior to that the defendants had impliedly admitted the liability vide letter dated 28.7.1995, Ex.PW-1/C, as already noticed and thereafter requested the plaintiffs to send their representative for discussion vide letter dated 03.05.1997, Ex.DX and again "advised" plaintiff No.1 vide letter dated 12-02-1999, Ex.PW-1/J "that the matter is being examined. We shall revert to you in due course", that is, within the initial period of limitation of three years, yet the fact remains that there was no such assurance from the side of defendant No.1 till as late as 20.09.2004, when it wrote to plaintiff No.1 vide letter of even date Ex.PW-1/X that the matter was still under consideration and as soon as any decision was taken, it would be informed accordingly. However, this assurance is of no help, as the period of limitation, which already stood expired on 7.6.1999, could not have been revived even if letter dated 20.09.2004, Ex.PW-1/X, is taken into consideration. 27. The present suit was filed by the plaintiffs on 18.01.2006. Thus, the plaintiffs are held entitled for payment of maintenance charges for the aforesaid facilities from the defendants for a period of three years preceding institution of the suit, that is, from 18.1.2003 to 17.1.2006 @ Rs. 1089/- per month per flat, which comes to Rs. 27. The present suit was filed by the plaintiffs on 18.01.2006. Thus, the plaintiffs are held entitled for payment of maintenance charges for the aforesaid facilities from the defendants for a period of three years preceding institution of the suit, that is, from 18.1.2003 to 17.1.2006 @ Rs. 1089/- per month per flat, which comes to Rs. 3,13,632/- (Rupees Three Lacs, Thirteen Thousand, Six Hundred and Thirty Two only). 28. Accordingly, whereas issue No.1 is held in affirmative, issue Nos. 2 and 3 are answered partly in affirmative. Issue No.4 29. Admittedly, defendant No.1, The Reserve Bank of India is a body corporate constituted under the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 and defendant No.2 its General Manager (Estates) based at Chandigarh. A statutory body or a Corporation, such as, Reserve Bank of India, does not fall within the expression "Government" in relation to Section 80 CPC, as has also been held in Kamta Prasad Singh and another v. The Regional Manager, Food Corporation of India and others, AIR 1974 Patna 376 and V. Padmanabhan Nair v. Kerala State Electricity Board, AIR 1989 Kerala 86. As such defendant No.2 can also not be said to be a "public officer" within the meaning of that Section. 30. The issue is held in negative. Issue No.5 31. After amendment of the plaint to include the details of the claim in para 13, this objection does not survive any more. Accordingly, the issue is disposed of as redundant. Issue No.6 32. This issue was not agitated by the defendants at the time of hearing. Even otherwise, it is not shown as to how and owing to what acts of omission and commission and conduct of its functionaries, the plaintiffs are estopped from filing the suit. The issue is decided accordingly. Relief 33. The cumulative effect of the above discussion on the issues under consideration is that the suit of the plaintiffs succeeds partly and is accordingly decreed in part. It is held that the plaintiffs are entitled to recover a sum of Rs. 3,13,632/- (Rupees Three Lacs, Thirteen Thousand, Six Hundred and Thirty Two only), along with past, pendente lite and future interest @ 12% per annum from the defendants as maintenance charges for the aforesaid facilities for a period of three years preceding institution of the suit, that is, from 18.1.2003 to 17.1.2006 @ Rs. 1089/- per flat per month. 34. 3,13,632/- (Rupees Three Lacs, Thirteen Thousand, Six Hundred and Thirty Two only), along with past, pendente lite and future interest @ 12% per annum from the defendants as maintenance charges for the aforesaid facilities for a period of three years preceding institution of the suit, that is, from 18.1.2003 to 17.1.2006 @ Rs. 1089/- per flat per month. 34. The plaintiffs are also held entitled for proportionate costs of the suit.