JUDGMENT : The suit is filed for recovery of sum of Rs.32,77,718.14P due and payable with future interest thereon. 2. The brief facts of the case of the plaintiff company are as follows:- (i) The plaintiff company is engaged in building contract work from 1995 onwards. The company was awarded a Work Order for putting up a Commercial Project at Rayapettah High Road on 13.11.2006 for the value of Rs.1,17,98,260/- by the defendant. The said work order was finalised and signed by both the plaintiff company and the defendant company. According to the plaintiff company, at the time of commencement of work, the plaintiff company was assigned certain supplementary works by way of Work Orders dated 2.11.2007 and 13.11.2007 for additional work in the very same project for the value of Rs.3,83,300 and Rs.6,96,100/- respectively. According to the plaintiff company, the entire project was completed and the building was handed over to the defendant company, as per the specifications of the defendant company during March 2008 itself and a final bill was also raised for a sum of Rs.14,97,978.41. However, in the said final bill, the retention amount in terms of work orders amounting to Rs.7,36,783/- was not included. While so, a letter was issued by the defendant company on 14.06.2008 stating that only a sum of Rs.1,35,439/- alone was due and payable as per their company's account. (ii) According to the plaintiff company, on 25.06.2009 they sent a final and revised bill for a sum of Rs.16,09,781.14P, which includes the retention amount due and payable to the plaintiff company, after deducting a sum of Rs.5,72,848.67 p, being the amount deductible for payments directly given to some of the sub contractors of the plaintiff company while carrying out the final works in the said project. However, till date, the defendant company did not settle the amount. Hence, the plaintiff company issued a legal notice dated 9.4.2011 calling upon the defendant company to settle the amount due to them to the tune of Rs.32,77,718.14 p. Since the defendant company sent a reply denying the liability, the plaintiff company have filed the present suit. 3. The case of the defendant company, in nutshell, is as follows:- According to the defendant company, the suit is barred by limitation. 3. The case of the defendant company, in nutshell, is as follows:- According to the defendant company, the suit is barred by limitation. Since the plaintiff company had raised a final bill on 10.6.2008, the suit ought to have been initiated within a period of 3 years i.e. on or before 10.06.2011. But for the reason best known to the plaintiff company, they have filed the suit for recovery of money only on 23.06.2011. Since the plaintiff company did not carry out the work as per the specifications in the work order, the defendant company had incurred huge cost for rectification of the defective work done by the plaintiff company. Therefore, the defendant company debited the said amount from the account of the plaintiff company after due intimation to them. Further, according to the defendant company, there was a huge delay in handing over possession of the building by the plaintiff company. The plaintiff company, by letter dated 25.6.2008, had also agreed about the sub-standard work. According to defendant company, they had paid all the sums due and payable for the works carried out by the plaintiff company, pursuant to the work orders dated 13.11.2006, 2.11.2007 and 15.11.2007 and hence, there is no balance due and payable to the plaintiff company. Thus, the defendant company prayed for dismissal of the suit. 4. On the above pleadings, originally, this Court, on 29.06.2012, has framed the following issues:- "1. Will the revised bill dated 25.06.2008 give rise to any cause of action and it is so, whether the suit claim is barred by limitation? 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of recovery of a sum of Rs.32,77,718.14P. with interest thereon at the rate of 24% per annum? 3. Is not the defendant entitled to debit the cost of rectification from the plaintiff's account? And 4. to what other relief the plaintiff entitled?" 5. On the side of the plaintiff company, P.W.1 was examined and Exs.P1 to P9 were marked and on the side of the defendant, D.W.1 was examined and Exs.D1 to D6 were marked. The details of the documents are hereunder:- Exhibits produced on the side of the plaintiff company: S. No. Exhibits Date Description of documents 1. P-1 13.11.2006 Xerox copy of the work order sent by the defendant to the plaintiff 2. The details of the documents are hereunder:- Exhibits produced on the side of the plaintiff company: S. No. Exhibits Date Description of documents 1. P-1 13.11.2006 Xerox copy of the work order sent by the defendant to the plaintiff 2. P-2 02.11.2007 xerox copy of the supplementary work order sent by the defendant to the plaintiff 3. P-3 15.11.2007 xerox copy of the supplementary work order sent by the defendant to the plaintiff 4. P-4 14.06.2008 xerox copy of the letter sent by the defendant to the plaintiff 5 P-5 25.06.2008 xerox copy of the letter sent by the plaintiff to the defendant 6 P-6 09.04.2011 Legal notice issued by the plaintiff's counsel to the defendant 7 P-7 05.05.2011 Reply notice sent by the defendant's counsel to the plaintiff 8 P-8 10.06.2008 RA Bill No.8 9 P-9 20.11.2006 Letter sent by the plaintiff to the defendant Exhibits produced on the side of the defendant company: 1 D-1 16.11.2012 Extract of the minutes of the meeting of the Board of Directors 2 D-2 05.04.2006 Xerox copy of planning permit 3 D-3 series 20.08.2007 Series of re-bound hammer-tests conducted on the project 4 D-4 21.04.2008 Xerox copy of the letter received from the owners of the property to the defendant 5 D-5 02.01.2012 Letter of authorization 6 D-6 14.06.2008 Xerox copy of letter sent by the defendant to the plaintiff Witnesses examined on the side of the plaintiff company: P.W.1. - Ravi Krishna Kumar Witnesses examined on the side of the defendant company D.W.1 Y. Nazeer Ahmed 6. Heard, Mr. K.V. Babu, the learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff company and Mr. Roshan Balasubramanian, the learned counsel appearing for the defendant company and perused the records. 7. The learned counsel for the plaintiff company submitted that the plaintiff company were engaged in building contract work and that, they were given work orders by the defendant company on 13.11.2016 for the value of Rs.1,17,98,260/-. The learned counsel for the plaintiff company further submitted that the supplementary contracts were also given to the plaintiff company and that the same were also completed and raised a bill for Rs.14,97,978.41p without including the retention amount. Thereafter, on 25.06.2008, the plaintiff raised a revised bill after including retention amount as per the terms of the work order and sent to the defendant. Thereafter, on 25.06.2008, the plaintiff raised a revised bill after including retention amount as per the terms of the work order and sent to the defendant. Therefore, it is the submission of the learned counsel for the plaintiff company that the present suit, which has been filed within three years from the date of the revised bill, is well within the period of limitation. 8. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the plaintiff company that the alleged breach of obligations on the part of the plaintiff company has not been established. Further, the substandard work and the rectification done by the defendant company has also not been established. It is also the contention of the learned counsel for the plaintiff company that, if really there was a defective work on the part of the plaintiff company, subsequent contracts would not have been allotted to them in the year 2007. Ex.P8 Certificate issued by the defendant's Site engineer and the evidence of D.W.1 would clearly prove that there was no substandard work. Hence, the learned counsel for the plaintiff company submitted that the plaintiff company is, certainly, entitled for recovery of amount as prayed for. 9. In support of his arguments, the learned counsel for the plaintiff company has relied on the judgments reported in AIR 1988 SC 1007 (Major (Retd.,) v. Inder Singh Rekhi); MANU/KA/1901/2013 (Mysore Minerals Limited V. Tam-Tam Pedda Guruva Reddy); 2013 (31) S.T.R. 537 (ALL) (Bhagwati Security Services V. Union of India) and MANU/MH/2605/2016 (The Bombay Dyeing & Manufacturing Co. Ltd. V. I.R. Enterprises) 10. On the contrary, it is the contention of the learned counsel for the defendant company that time limit has not been prescribed in the work orders. Therefore, the suit ought to have been filed within three years from the date when the work was completed. It is the further contention of the learned counsel for the defendant company that though the work was completed in March 2008, the suit was filed only on 23.06.2011, which is beyond the period of three years and hence, it is barred under Art.18 of the Limitation Act. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the defendant company that though the plaintiff company has stated that the final bill was raised by them on 10.6.2008, the same has not been filed before the Court. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the defendant company that though the plaintiff company has stated that the final bill was raised by them on 10.6.2008, the same has not been filed before the Court. Even assuming that the bill was raised on 10.6.2008, the suit ought to have been filed on or before 10.6.2011 but the same was filed only on 23.6.2011, which is also beyond the period of three years. 11. It is the submission of the learned counsel for the defendant company that the bill dated 25.06.2008 is only a revision of the Final Bill dated 10.06.2008 for a sum of Rs.14,97,978.41p and the same is not certified by the defendant company's Site engineer. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the defendant company that in Ex.P5, letter dated 25.06.2008, the plaintiff has also admitted the rectification done by the defendant company. Further, P.W.1 in his cross examination also admitted about the rectification done by the defendant company. All these facts clearly indicate that the plaintiff company has not constructed the building as agreed. It is submitted by the learned counsel that the defendant company had carried out the rectification work and made payment after deducting the said amount. Hence, it is the submission of the learned counsel for the defendant company that the suit is not maintainable. It is also the submission of the learned counsel for the defendant company that as the plaintiff company has withheld the Bill dated 10.06.2008, adverse inference has to be drawn against them. Thus, the learned counsel for the defendant company prayed for dismissal of the suit. 12. In support of the above contentions, the learned counsel for the defendant company has relied on the judgments reported in (2008) 17 SCC 491 (Bachhaj Nahar vs. Nilima Mandal & Anr.); (2011) 12 SCC 695 (National Textile Corporation Limited V. Nareshkumar Badrikumar Jagad & Ors.); (2012) 5 SCC 306 (Rashtriya Ispat Nigam Limited v. Dewan Chand Ram Saran); MANU/MH/0085/2013 (State of Maharashtra V. Hindustan Construction Company Ltd.); MANU/DE/0385/2010 (Shri Satender Kumar vs. Municipal Corporation of Delhi & Anr.); MANU/AP/0374/2005 (Ashok Kumar vs. The State of A.P.); and MANU/TN/1455/2016 (S. Jesuraj vs. M.A.R. Sathiyagu & Others). 13. In the light of the above submissions, this Court has to analyse the issues framed by this Court.