JUDGMENT & ORDER : Heard Mr. A. Roy Barman, learned CGC appearing for the appellants and Mr. S.M. Chakraborty, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. B. Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing for the sole-respondent. 2. This is an appeal under Section 96 of the CPC from the judgment dated 05.09.2013 delivered in Title Suit No.11 of 2008 by the Civil Judge, Senior Division (Court No.2), West Tripura, Agartala. 3. The respondent instituted the suit being Title Suit No. 11 of 2008 for declaration and realization of a sum of Rs.7,47,726/-. The essential facts which are to be taken note of, for purpose of determining this appeal may briefly be recorded at the outset. The sole-respondent was awarded a work order for construction of 50 bed-Hospital for the Border Security Force, in short, BSF, at Shal Bagan, Agartala and for purpose of execution of the said work, the agreement bearing No.22/ADG/CE/SE/EE/TCD/AGT/2000-2001 was entered between the appellants and the respondent. Since, the respondent could not complete the work within the time as stipulated, in two installments the compensation was levied for such delay. The said amount as sought to be realized by this suit is the compensation that has been levied upon the plaintiff, the respondent herein. 4. It has been clearly pleaded by the plaintiff-respondent that by the order under No.54(515)/SCC/2004/292 dated 08.06.2004, [part of Exbt.2 series] the sole respondent was imposed with the levy at the rate of 2% on the tender amount which has been calculated at Rs.7,12,120/-. By another order dated 27.02.2007 [part of Exbt.2 series] the sole respondent was levied with compensation of Rs.35,606/-. The plaintiff-respondent and without resorting to any legal action received the final bill and only after receiving the final payment, he raised objection. The plaintiff-respondent raised a demand for refund of the said sum as levied for delaying the execution of the work. From one letter of the sole respondent dated 30.07.2004 [part of Exbt.3 series] it transpires that the plaintiff-respondent raised objection on levying the said compensation to the extent of Rs.7,12,120/- and he had stated that such levy was entirely uncalled for in the circumstances of the case. 5. The admitted position is that the suit was filed on 17.03.2001 seeking the relief for realization of the total sum of Rs.7,47,726/- by cancelling the orders by dint of which the compensation was levied on 08.06.2004 and 27.02.2007. 5. The admitted position is that the suit was filed on 17.03.2001 seeking the relief for realization of the total sum of Rs.7,47,726/- by cancelling the orders by dint of which the compensation was levied on 08.06.2004 and 27.02.2007. The defendant-appellants by filing the written statement had raised the question of maintainability of the claim inasmuch as, according to them, the claim was hopelessly barred by the law of limitation. The defendant-appellants had denied any illegality committed by them on levying the compensation on the plaintiff-respondent. The defendant-appellants categorically denied that the cause of action for the suit arose lastly on 22.08.2007 when the final bill was paid to the plaintiff-respondent “by deducting the illegally levied amount.” 6. Based on the pleadings of the parties the trial court framed the following issues for adjudication of the suit : “I. Is the suit maintainable in its present form and nature ? II. Whether the plaintiff Sri Narayan Chandra Kar violated the clauses of the agreement vide No.22/ADG/CE/SE/EE/TCD/AGT/2000-2001 by intentionally delaying in completion of work; III. Whether the levy order bearing No.54(515)/SCC/2004/1292 dated 08.06.2004 for an amount of Rs.7,12,120/- and the levy order bearing No.54(515)/SCC/2007/270 dated 27.02.2007 for an amount of Rs.35,606/- are illegal, arbitrary, unauthorized and avoid in the eye of law; IV. Is the plaintiff entitled to get a decree as prayed for? V. What other relief or reliefs the parties to this suit are entitled to get ?” 7. While determining the issue No.1, the trial court has observed as follows : “At the time of argument the Ld. Asstt. Solicitor General, did not challenge the maintainability of this suit, rather from the evidence on record, it has been proved that the present suit has arose out of a contractual relationship between the plaintiff and the defendants. The defendant No.2 levied compensation upon the plaintiff firstly on 08.06.2004 and again on 27.02.2007 and the plaintiff has instituted the suit on 17.03.2008 and therefore, I find that this suit is very much maintainable in its present form and nature.” The trial court did not go beyond this in determining the issue of limitation as raised by the defendant-appellants. 8. 8. On appreciation of the evidence as recorded in the suit, the trial court has further observed that the defendant No.2 levied compensation upon the plaintiff without issuing any Show Cause Notice, and hence there had been violation of the principles of natural justice by the defendant No.2 and therefore, the order bearing No.54(515)/SCC/2004/1292 dated 08.06.2004 levying compensation for an amount of Rs.7,12,120/- and the order bearing No.54(515)/SCC/2007/270 dated 27.02.2007 levying compensation for an amount of Rs.35,606/- passed/issued by the defendant No.2 are illegal, arbitrary, unauthorized and void in the eye of law. Accordingly, the suit was decreed. The present appeal has challenged the said finding. 9. Mr. A. Roy Barman, learned CGC appearing for the appellants-Union of India has fairly submitted that fundamentally this appeal is structured on the ground of limitation. The observation that no objection was raised by the defendants as regards cannot be sustained limitation, inasmuch as in the written statement a specific ground of objection in respect of limitation had been raised by the defendant-appellants. That apart, to ascertain whether the suit is barred by limitation is not onus of the parties in the suit. Equally that is the domain of the court. A time-barred suit cannot be entertained by any civil court as a matter of public policy. According to Mr. Roy Barman, learned CGC, even though, the civil court has recorded the specific finding that levy of compensation was first made by the defendant-appellants on 08.06.2004 but while determining the issue of limitation that aspect was completely ignored. 10. Since the plaintiff-respondent has made that the cause of action arose on the day of drawing of the final bill, the civil court has accepted the said plea. As per the Limitation Act, a suit for any claim or declaration in respect of any status has to be filed within a period of 3(three) years from the date of the cause of action. The trial court has correctly located two separate dates of cause of action viz. 08.06.2004 and 27.02.2007. 11. Mr. Roy Barman, learned CGC appearing for the defendant-appellants has unerringly submitted that the suit was maintainable so far the cause against the levy of sum of Rs.35,606/- is concerned but the other cause could not have been adjudicated in the same suit being barred by limitation. 12. Mr. 08.06.2004 and 27.02.2007. 11. Mr. Roy Barman, learned CGC appearing for the defendant-appellants has unerringly submitted that the suit was maintainable so far the cause against the levy of sum of Rs.35,606/- is concerned but the other cause could not have been adjudicated in the same suit being barred by limitation. 12. Mr. S.M. Chakraborty, learned senior counsel appearing for the plaintiff-respondent has strenuously argued that the final bill was paid on 22.08.2007 and deduction of the compensation was reflected in the final bill. As such that would be the day of the cause of action for institution of the suit. 13. In view of the rival contentions as advanced by the learned counsel in this appeal, the following questions emerges for determination of this appeal : For purpose of the suit whether the order of levy of compensation would provide the cause of action or the day of payment of the final bill to the plaintiff-respondent would be the day for cause of action ? 14. There cannot be any amount of ambiguity inasmuch as the position of law is crystallized that the levy of compensation would be the day for determining the cause of action inasmuch as in the suit, the correctness of imposing such levy has been questioned. The consequential relief is for realization of the said compensation as levied and deducted. Moreover, from Exbt. 3 series it has been gathered that the plaintiff-respondent has raised the objection against the levy on 30.07.2004 and urged to vacate the order of levy. As such, the plaintiff-respondent was quite alive of the consequence of the order levying compensation and that is the reason why he had urged for vacating the said order. But no such positive order was passed by the defendant-appellants but the plaintiff had waited till 17.03.2008 to institute the suit against such levy of compensation. However, the suit so far the levy of compensation by the order dated 27.02.2007 is concerned is within the period of limitation. As Mr. Roy Barman, learned CGC has not questioned the analogy of reasons as provided in the impugned judgment dated 05.09.2013 so as to issue the decree for realization of the amount of Rs.35,606/- with interest is concerned, that may not be re-examined by this court. As Mr. Roy Barman, learned CGC has not questioned the analogy of reasons as provided in the impugned judgment dated 05.09.2013 so as to issue the decree for realization of the amount of Rs.35,606/- with interest is concerned, that may not be re-examined by this court. But this court is of the view that suit so far it relates to the levy of compensation to the extent of Rs.7,47,726/- is concerned is clearly barred by limitation. Accordingly, that part of the claim ought not have decreed by the trial court. 15. Having observed thus, the impugned judgment is partly interfered with and modified in the following terms. The plaintiff-respondent is entitled to realize a sum of Rs.35,606/- with interest at 9% per annum from 17.03.2008 till the date of realization. The other part of the relief as discussed above stands dismissed. In the result, this appeal is partly allowed. Draw the decree accordingly. At this juncture, Mr. Roy Barman, learned CGC has submitted that 50% of the decretal amount has been deposited by the defendant-appellants in the Registry. After due adjustment for satisfying the decree, the remainder of the amount, if any, shall be refunded to the defendant-appellants. Return the LCRs after preparation of the decree.