JUDGMENT 1. - This First Appeal is arising out of the Judgment and Decree dated 6.4.1993 passed by the learned District Judge, Jodhpur in Case No. 101/1987 "Sohan Lal v. M/s. Mehta Construction Company and Anr. " who dismissed the suit filed by the present appellant-plaintiff for recovery of Rs. 18,200/-. 2. Perused the record. 3. By the impugned Judgment and Decree dated 6.4.1993, the suit for recovery of Rs. 18,200/- filed by the plaintiff Sohan Lal, who plied the tractors in the work of construction of dam by the defendant construction company namely, M/s. Mehta Construction Company, was dismissed by the learned Trial Court. The suit in question was dismissed by the learned Trial Court as barred by limitation, while the other issues were decided in favour of the plaintiff. 4. The learned Trial Court had relied upon certain judgments in the cases of Dharam Singh v. Khan Chand, AIR 1966 All 137 and Arjun Lal v. Daya Ram, AIR 1971 Pat. 278 , in support of the findings arrived at by it on the issue of Imitation in filing the present suit by the plaintiff, where he claimed that the cheque given by the defendant Company was dishonoured on 12.3.1984 but he had filed the suit on 12.3.1987. 5. Having perused the record of the case, it is borne out that the appellant-plaintiff has not been able to serve the respondent-defendant. The Order dated 26.9.2014 passed by this Court reads as under:- "Notice of date of hearing was ordered to be issued to the respondents as both the learned Counsel appearing for the respondents had died. However, the notices have been received unserved for want of fresh address. There is apparently no mechanism to find out the fresh address of the respondents and, therefore, the appeal shall proceed ex-parte against the respondents. List the Appeal for hearing." 6. Having perused the record of the case and the reasons assigned by the learned Trial Court, while dismissing the time barred suit filed by the plaintiff Sohan, this Court is satisfied that the judgment under challenge is justified and deserves to be upheld and, therefore, no interference is called for by this Court in the present First Appeal. The First Appeal is liable to be dismissed. 7. Accordingly and in view of the above, this First Appeal filed by the plaintiffs-Sohan Lal is dismissed. No costs. The First Appeal is liable to be dismissed. 7. Accordingly and in view of the above, this First Appeal filed by the plaintiffs-Sohan Lal is dismissed. No costs. A copy of this order be sent to the parties and the learned Trial Court concerned forthwith.Appeal dismissed. *******