JUDGMENT P. DEVADASS, J. 1. The unsuccessful plaintiff before the trial Court II Additional District Munsif Court, Tirunelvelli in O.S. No. 675 of 2004 and before the first appellate Court I Additional Sub-Court, Tirunelveli in A.S. No. 260 of 2005, is the appellant herein. 2. The defendant had the licence from the plaintiff for supply of milk for specified period. At the inception, security deposit of Rs. 10,000/- was paid to the plaintiff by the defendant. There were supply of milk and payment of amount. Thus, it went on. As on 23.06.1995, the defendant has to pay the plaintiff Rs. 42,145.20. After deducting the security amount of Rs. 10,000/- the balance due is Rs. 32,083.30. Adding interest at 12%, the total came to Rs. 35,762.18. To recover the same, the plaintiff laid the suit in O.S. No. 675 of 2004. 3. The defendant resisted the claim by filing written statement, which is to the effect that on and after 23.06.1995, there was no supply of milk and there was no transaction. Thus, the claim is barred by time. 4. The trial Court framed issues and tried the suit. The plaintiff examined its Officials as P.Ws.1 and 2 and also marked Exs.A1 to A5. The defendant chose not to let in any oral and documentary evidence. 5. The trial Court came to the conclusion that the part payments, namely Rs. 38.10/- and Rs. 100/- stated to have been paid by the defendant have not been proved by the plaintiff and the suit was not filed within time, dismissed it. 6. The plaintiff went to the next appellate Court in A.S. No. 260 of 2005 (I Additional Sub-Court, Tirunelveli) complaining that the trial Court has not appreciated the plaintiff's case correctly. 7. Before the first appellate Court, the limitation aspect has been approached from a different angle. Now the plaintiff's stand was that it has been registered under the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act, 1983 and as per Section 90 of the Act, a period of six years is prescribed to recover its dues from its agents. The defendant its agent. Thus, the suit is in time. The first appellate Court noticing that the plaintiff has been registered under the Companies Act and the period of limitation is only three years as prescribed in Article 15 of the New Limitation Act, dismissed the appeal suit. 8. The defendant its agent. Thus, the suit is in time. The first appellate Court noticing that the plaintiff has been registered under the Companies Act and the period of limitation is only three years as prescribed in Article 15 of the New Limitation Act, dismissed the appeal suit. 8. Under the circumstances, the plaintiff directed this second appeal. 9. In this second appeal, at the time of admission, the then learned Brother, framed the following substantial question of law:- "Whether the Courts below have failed to note that the appellant is the society registered under Co-operative Societies Act and the said Act alone is applicable in computing the limitation for recovery of amount?" 10. The learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff would contend that the security deposit of Rs. 10,000/- having been adjusted after 31.03.1996, adding three years, then the suit is in time. The other limb of his argument is that the dispute between the co-operative society and its agents are covered under Section 90 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983 and even in his written statement, the defendant has admitted that he is an agent, in such circumstances, the period of limitation is six years. Thus, the suit is in time. 11. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent/defendant would contend that Rs. 10,000/- by way of security deposit has been with the plaintiff from the very beginning and only to save the suit from limitation, for the first time through his counsel in his address to this Court, the theory of the said adjustment has been stated. There is no details of such adjustment in the plaint as to when it was adjusted. Further, even P.Ws.1 and 2 have not stated about such adjustment of Rs. 10,000/-. Inasmuch as limitation question is involved, when it was so adjusted is very important. 12. The learned counsel for the respondent would also submit that as per Section 2(22) of Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983, the Act applies to the Societies registered under the Act. However, in the plaint, it has been clearly averred that the plaintiff is a Company registered under the Companies Act. However, even for argument sake, Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983 applies, defendant would not be an agent, he is only a purchaser. Further, the claim would not fall under Section 90 of the Said Act. 13. However, in the plaint, it has been clearly averred that the plaintiff is a Company registered under the Companies Act. However, even for argument sake, Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983 applies, defendant would not be an agent, he is only a purchaser. Further, the claim would not fall under Section 90 of the Said Act. 13. I have anxiously considered the rival submissions, perused the records of the case and the impugned judgments and decrees of the Courts below and also went through the relevant provisions of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983. 14. Admittedly, the defendant had an arrangement with the plaintiff for the supply of milk for a prescribed period. The terms and conditions and also the understanding is as against the supply of milk, the defendant has to make weekly payments and he should not carry any arrears. Admittedly, at the very inception, the defendant has deposited Rs. 10,000/- with the plaintiff towards security amount. 15. Plaintiff sought for recovery of the dues from the defendant as on 23.06.1995. Ex.A1 is the accounts maintained by the plaintiff. The suit has been filed on 30.03.1999. If the period is calculated as prescribed under Article 15 of the Limitation Act, it is beyond three years, so barred by limitation. 16. The plea of limitation is an important aspect in civil cases (See Limitation Act). Because it extinguishes the right to sue. Such a provision must be strictly construed. It intends to give finality to the claims, rights and their enforcement. Otherwise, there will be no end for litigations, as the tendency of the people is to fight till they go to their graveyards. 17. The current Act is of the year 1963. As per Article 15 of the Limitation Act, for recovery of price of goods supplied, the limitation period is three years from the date when credit expires. Of course, that period can be kept alive by making part payments. Because that will give fresh period of limitation. The attempt made by the plaintiff alleging that on 31.03.1996 payment of Rs. 38.10 has been made by the defendant and also on 31.03.1998, Rs. 100/- was paid by him, was negatived by both the Courts on the own admission of P.W.1. 18. Now a new turn has been taken place. Now it is contended that the security amount of Rs. 10,000/- has been adjusted after 31.03.1996. 38.10 has been made by the defendant and also on 31.03.1998, Rs. 100/- was paid by him, was negatived by both the Courts on the own admission of P.W.1. 18. Now a new turn has been taken place. Now it is contended that the security amount of Rs. 10,000/- has been adjusted after 31.03.1996. Then, the suit is in time. 19. Admittedly, Rs. 10,000/- towards security deposit has been withheld by the plaintiff from the very inception of the licence. It is not in dispute that such security deposit is with the plaintiff on the understanding that it will be adjusted as against the arrears. The accounts were struck on 23.06.1995 itself. Thereafter no transaction. In all fairness plaintiff could have deducted Rs. 10,000/- on that day itself. The date on which, Rs. 10,000/- has been deducted has not been clearly stated in the plaint. Even P.W.1 has not spoken to about the date when Rs. 10,000/- has been deducted. Now the plaintiff is nerving too much to save the suit claim from being barred by time. Thus, it came out for the first time from the mouth of the plaintiff de horse any pleading and evidence. So, it is unacceptable to us. 20. The second limb of argument, is based on certain provisions of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983. 21. Section 2(22) of the said Act is very clear as regards the application of the Act, i.e. the Act applies only to the Societies registered under the Act. But, in Paragraph No. 3 of the plaint, there is open declaration by the plaintiff that it has been registered under the Companies Act. In such circumstances, let us not waste our time in referring to Section 90 of the Tamil Nadu Cooperative Societies Act, 1983 and to see whether it applies to the defendant or not. 22. The Law is very clear that a period of three years alone is available for recovery of price of goods supplied (See Article 15 of Limitation Act, 1963). Plaintiff has slept over. The plaintiff is trying to recover a stale claim. The enforceability of the claim is barred because of the Law of limitation. 23. In the circumstances, the substantial question of law is answered as against the appellant. 24. Plaintiff has slept over. The plaintiff is trying to recover a stale claim. The enforceability of the claim is barred because of the Law of limitation. 23. In the circumstances, the substantial question of law is answered as against the appellant. 24. In view of the fore goings, this second appeal fails and it is dismissed, confirming the judgments and decrees of the Courts below. In the circumstances, parties are left to bear their respective costs.