JUDGMENT : A.K. RATH, J. Plaintiff is the appellant against a confirming judgment in a suit for compensation of Rs. 90/-. 2. The case of the plaintiff is that he was a consumer of electricity having consumer nos.D-11-A-54 and D-11-A54/A. On 17.12.86, defendant no.3 disconnected both the electric lines without notice in spite of the fact that there was no outstanding. The electricity connection was restored on the same day by paying Rs.20/- towards reconnection charges. For such illegal disconnection, the plaintiff, who is a practising Advocate, suffered mental and physical pain and his prestige was lowered before his clients and public. With this factual scenario, the plaintiff instituted the suit claiming compensation of Rs.90/- under different heads. 3. The defendants entered contest and filed written statement denying the assertions made in the plaint. The case of the defendants was that plaintiff was a consumer of the electricity. There was outstanding dues against the plaintiff upto 30.9.1986. For non-payment of the same, the electricity supply was disconnected on 17.12.86 at 10.30 A.M. But then, on the same day the electricity supply was restored on payment of reconnection charges and payment of some arrear dues. 4. Stemming on the pleadings of the parties, learned trial court struck six issues. Parties led evidence. Learned trial court came to hold that no notice was served on the plaintiff. There was infraction of Regulation 49 of the O.S.E.B. (General Conditions of Supply) Regulation, 1981. The defendants did not follow the proper procedure before disconnection. Plaintiff sustained loss. However, the suit is barred by limitation. Held so, it dismissed the suit. The unsuccessful plaintiff filed M.A. No.2 of 1992 before the learned Additional District Judge, Kendrapara, which was eventually dismissed. 5. The second appeal was admitted on the following substantial question of law. “As to whether Article 55 or Article 72 of the Limitation Act is applicable in view of the fact that appellant was a consumer who was supplied with electric energy pursuant to an agreement between the appellant and respondents ?” 6. Heard Mr. R.K. Mohanty, learned Senior Advocate for the appellant and Mr. A.K. Das on behalf of Mr. B.K. Nayak, learned counsel for the respondents. 7. Mr. Mohanty, learned Senior Advocate for the appellant argues with vehemence that the plaintiff is an Advocate of repute. No notice was served on him before disconnection of the electricity supply. Heard Mr. R.K. Mohanty, learned Senior Advocate for the appellant and Mr. A.K. Das on behalf of Mr. B.K. Nayak, learned counsel for the respondents. 7. Mr. Mohanty, learned Senior Advocate for the appellant argues with vehemence that the plaintiff is an Advocate of repute. No notice was served on him before disconnection of the electricity supply. The plaintiff sustained a loss of Rs.90/-. Both the courts concurrently held that no notice was served on the plaintiff. However, the courts below fell into patent error of law in holding that the suit is barred by limitation under Article 72 of the Limitation Act. He further submits that the suit is governed under Article 55 of the Limitation Act. The period of limitation is three years. The electricity line was disconnected on 17.12.86 and the suit was filed on 29.4.1988. Thus the suit is within the prescribed period of limitation. 8. Per contra, Mr. Das, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the suit is governed under Article 72 of the Limitation Act. The suit is barred by limitation. 9. Before adverting to the contentions raised by the counsel for both parties, it will necessary to set out the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963. Article 55 and Article 72 of the Limitation Act, 1963 are quoted hereunder. Description of suit Period of limitation Time from which period begins to run 55. For compensation for the breach of any contract, express or implied not herein specially provided for. Three years When the contract is broken or (where there are successive breaches) when the breach in respect of which the suit is instituted occurs or (where the breach is continuing) when it ceases. xxx xxx xxx 72. For compensation for doing or for omitting to do an act alleged to be in pursuance of any enactment in force for the time being in the territories to which this Act extends. One year When the act or omission takes place. 10. For compensation for the breach of any contract, express or implied not herein specially provided for, the period of limitation is three years. No contract was entered into between the plaintiff and defendants. There is no alleged breach of contract. One year When the act or omission takes place. 10. For compensation for the breach of any contract, express or implied not herein specially provided for, the period of limitation is three years. No contract was entered into between the plaintiff and defendants. There is no alleged breach of contract. For compensation for doing or for omitting to do an act alleged to be in pursuance of any enactment in force for the time being in the territories to which this Act extends, the period of limitation is one year when the act or omission takes place. The suit has been filed claiming compensation of Rs.90/- from the defendants. The words “For compensation for doing or for omitting to do an act alleged to be in pursuance of any enactment in force for the time being in the territories to which this Act extends” takes within its sweep the alleged breach committed by the defendants in disconnecting the power supply. Thus the period of limitation is one year. Rightly, the learned trial court dismissed the suit. The substantial question of law is answered accordingly. 11. In wake of aforesaid, the appeal, sans merit, deserves dismissal. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. No costs.