JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. Kundan Kumar Ambashtha, counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant. 2. Heard Mr. Nipun Baxi, counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent-State. 3. This appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree dated 22.06.2004 (decree signed on 14.07.2004) passed by Sub-judge VI, Palamu at Daltenganj, dismissing the Money Suit No. 7 of 2000. 4. Money Suit No. 7 of 2000 was filed by the plaintiff for a money decree of Rs. 6,00,000/- against the defendants with interest pendent lite and thereafter till realization together with cost. The aforesaid amount was claimed by way of damage/compensation for the period from 1992 to 1999. 5. The case of the plaintiff as per the plaint was that the defendant no. 1 sanctioned construction of embankment on eastern part of the river Koel from Mohammadganj to village-Kadal Kurmi within P.S. Haidarnagar, District Palamu under the supervision of defendant no. 2, for the purpose of saving the adjacent land from being sub-merged. In course of execution of the aforesaid scheme and project an embankment in village Kadal Kurmi was constructed and in this construction of embankment two holes or big gaps were left to be filled up later on, but neither these holes/gaps were filled up nor any protection was provided by the defendants to save the land mostly of the plaintiff from completely being sub-merged from the large quantity of water including flood water passing through the aforesaid two holes/gaps. These two gaps were 33 meters and 19 meters respectively. The action on the part of the defendants started causing loss and damage to the cultivable land of the plaintiff, which became useless since agricultural season of 1992. It was further the specific case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff had approached the authorities concerned in this regard and was assured that the gaps will be filled up and the land of the plaintiff would be saved from being sub-merged, but it was not done and only because of the assurances, there has been a delay in filing the suit. The details of the land of the plaintiff so adversely affected was given in the schedule of the plaint. 6. The details of the land of the plaintiff so adversely affected was given in the schedule of the plaint. 6. It was the specific case of the plaintiff that the land involved in the suit was used by the plaintiff to produce Paddy, Wheat and Garma Mung and one acre of land produced on an average ten quintals of Paddy, five quintals of Wheat and two quintals of Garma Mung each year and the market rate of the Paddy was Rs. 400/- per quintal; Wheat was Rs. 600/- per quintal and Garma Mung was Rs. 1,200/- per quintal and the value of per quintal of Paddy, Wheat and Garma Mung rose from year to year. The plaintiff gave notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 dated 17.06.1999, but there was no proper response and thereafter another notice dated 05.01.2000 was also given which was also not responded to and again the plaintiff finally issue notice dated 08.05.2000 under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 through his Advocate, claiming a damage of Rs. 6,00,000/-. The notice was responded to by the defendant no. 2 vide Memo No. 442 dated 12.05.2000 and the defendant no. 2 in his memo admitted about two gaps having been left and the damage to the lands of the plaintiff. But, in spite of receipt of the notice, there was no fruitful response and the gaps continued to cause damage to the land of the plaintiff which ultimately led to filing of the suit. The other family members of the plaintiff were made as proforma defendants. As per the case of the plaintiff, the cause of action for filing the suit accrued on the dates on which the authorities were approached and on the date of notice issued under Section 80 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 i.e. on 08.05.2000 and thereafter on 12.05.2000 when the defendants acknowledged the receipt of the notice by issuing Letter No. 442 dated 12.05.2000 in response to the notice issued under Section 80 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and acknowledged that the damage has been caused to the plaintiff. 7. 7. Upon notice, the defendants had filed a written statement before the learned court below and stated that the suit was not maintainable and was also barred by limitation and there was no cause of action to file the suit by the plaintiff and the plaintiff has no right to seek any compensation whatsoever from the defendants. The defendants had specifically pleaded that a barrage was constructed on Koel River and afflux bandh was constructed in the right side to save the adjacent lands from being sub-merged by afflux of the river during irrigation period and village Kadal Kurmi is situated to the right side of afflux bandh. To facilitate drainage of water coming from hill area through vent of railway embankment as well as rain water in between afflux bandh and railway embankment, gap was essential and if there were no gaps, there would be no way for drainage of the area involved in the suit. Accordingly, alternative scheme was also under consideration by the Government, by which these gaps will be completely closed and area will be clear from drainage. It was the specific case of the defendants that the bandh had helped the plaintiff and not damaged his cultivation and that the plaintiff wanted more facilities, which the Government has considered and the proposed scheme would take some more time to take a final shape. It was also asserted that the entire area was benefited. Further, it was the case of the defendants that the plaintiff was not facing danger to his land by devastating flow of river Koel because of construction of barrage on river Koel, rather he was given much protection and facilities by construction of barrage and now he was pushing hard for filling up the gaps. It was also pleaded in the written statement that due to fertile silt, the plaintiff was benefitted. It was further pleaded in the written statement that before these constructions, the land of the plaintiff received water through the vents of railway track as well as river during devastating flood period and the plaintiff had no loss whatsoever due to construction of barrage and afflux bandh and accordingly, the defendants denied the liability to pay any compensation to the plaintiff. 8. The following issues were framed by the learned trial court for consideration:- (i) Is the suit as framed maintainable? 8. The following issues were framed by the learned trial court for consideration:- (i) Is the suit as framed maintainable? (ii) Has the plaintiff got any cause of action for the suit? (iii) Is the suit barred by waiver, estoppel and acquiescence? (iv) Is the suit barred by the law of limitation? (v) Has the plaintiff suffered damages as claimed and is entitled to the amount of compensation? (vi) Is scheme of the embankment objectionable and detrimental to the land of the plaintiff? (vii) Has Bandh provided facilities to the plaintiff and is the suit for more and more facilities without any right? (viii) Are allegation of damage bona fide and in good faith? (ix) Is the plaintiff entitled to the reliefs prayed for? (x) To what relief if any is the plaintiff further entitled? 9. To substantiate the case, the plaintiff examined as many as ten witnesses and the plaintiff examined himself as P.W. 5. The witness no. 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 were formal witnesses, who had proved certain documents which were marked as exhibits. The plaintiff also proved the following documents which were marked as Exhibit at para 7 of the trial court judgment:- SI. No. Documents Exhibit (i) Rent receipt six in numbers exhibit-1, 1/A, 1/B, 1/C, 1/D and 1/E (ii) Carbon copy of notices three in numbers exhibit-2, 2/A and 2/B (iii) Letter of Executive Engineer to Assistant Engineer exhibit-3 (iv) Reply of advocate’s notice by Executive Engineer exhibit-3/A (v) Banda Purcha seven in numbers exhibit-4, 4/A, 4/B, 4/C, 4/D, 4/E & 4/F (vi) Land verification certificate by C.O., Hussainabad exhibit-5 10. So far as the defendants are concerned, they examined four witnesses and also proved certain documents/maps in support of their case which are as follows:- SI. No. Document Exhibit (i) The map of village Kadal Kurmi Exhibit-A (ii) the signature of Sadhu Saran Pal on the map Exhibit B (iii) schematic diagram Exhibit B/1 (iv) certified copy of the map of Village Kadal Kurmi Exhibit C After considering the evidences on record, all the issues except issue no. 3 were decided against the plaintiff and so far as issue no. 3 is concerned, the same was not pressed. 11. Counsel for the appellants submits that the issue no. 3 were decided against the plaintiff and so far as issue no. 3 is concerned, the same was not pressed. 11. Counsel for the appellants submits that the issue no. 4 regarding the point of limitation has been wrongly decided by the learned trial court and he submits that in the instant case Section 22 of the Limitation Act, 1963 will come into play, in as much as, there is a continuing wrong and such continuing wrong continuously constitute a fresh cause of action. Accordingly, the suit could not have been held to be barred by limitation. 12. He further submits that so far as issue nos. 5 and 6 are concerned, the same have been wrongly decided, in as much as, the plaintiff had given sufficient evidence on record to show that the plaintiff had suffered due to the act/omission of the respondents and his agricultural land became sub-merged and suffered heavy damage and he was not able to cultivate his land and grow Paddy, Wheat and Garma Mung over his agricultural land. He submits that there was consistent evidence on behalf of the witnesses of the plaintiff, which have not been properly appreciated by the learned court below. He also submits that even in reply to notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure which was issued by the respondents vide Memo No. 442 dated 12.05.2000 (Exhibit-3/A) the entire facts narrated in the suit have been admitted. 13. Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that it was the specific case of the defendants that the plaintiff had not suffered due to any act or omission on the part of the defendants and that the water was earlier also flowing through the land of the plaintiff. Village Kadal Kurmi is surrounded by hill and river and that the plaintiff was saving his land from devastating flood of river Koel by the construction of barrage and the gaps are necessary to save the village from rain water from the hill as well as from the river. Village Kadal Kurmi is surrounded by hill and river and that the plaintiff was saving his land from devastating flood of river Koel by the construction of barrage and the gaps are necessary to save the village from rain water from the hill as well as from the river. He refers to the written statement and submits that maps have been filed by the defendants and marked as exhibits to show how the land of the plaintiff was placed and was throughout affected by rain water from the hills moving under the railway track as well as by the river and this was the position even prior to construction of barrage and in fact the barrage was constructed to save the adjoining land of the river from being sub-merged. The gaps were essential in order to provide drainage to water from hill side flowing under the rail line. 14. The counsel for the respondents also submits that as the suit was filed for damages from 1992 to 1999, the benefit of Section 22 of the Limitation Act, 1963 was not available. He submits that the claim for damages cannot be said to be a continuing wrong, so as to attract Section 22 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Counsel for the respondents further submits that a suit for damages stand on a different footing vis-à-vis a continuing wrong in respect of enjoyment of ones right in a property. There is no dispute that unless the wrong is a continuing one, the period of limitation does not stop running. Once the period begins to run, it does not stop except where the provision of Section 22 of the aforesaid Act would apply. He submits that this view has been taken by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the judgment reported in (2006) 13 SCC 470 (Shankar Dastidar vs. Banjula Dastidar and Another) and he refers to Para 8 of the aforesaid judgment and submits that the plaintiff never claimed any relief of permanent injunction or any other relief except claim for damages for an amount of Rs. 6,00,000/- which he claimed to have suffered from the period 1992 to 1999. He submits that the cause of action for filing the suit for damages arose as back as in the year 1992 itself and the plaintiff did not file the suit within the period of limitation. 6,00,000/- which he claimed to have suffered from the period 1992 to 1999. He submits that the cause of action for filing the suit for damages arose as back as in the year 1992 itself and the plaintiff did not file the suit within the period of limitation. He further submits that the learned trial court has referred to Article 86 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and has held that the suit was barred by limitation, as the period of limitation as prescribed is only three years. He submits that the suit has been rightly held to be time barred and otherwise also there was no merit in the claim of the plaintiff and therefore the suit has been rightly dismissed. 15. After hearing the counsel for the parties and after considering the materials on record, this Court finds that the point of determination in the instant case would be : 1. whether the plaintiff has suffered damages, pursuant to the scheme of embankment which was undertaken by the respondents? And 2. Whether the suit was barred by limitation? 16. The case of the plaintiff and the defendants and the evidences adduced by the parties have already been mentioned above. 17. So far as P.W.-1 is concerned, he has stated in his evidence that the plaintiff has about 10 acres of land in village Kadal Kurmi and on the western side of the land, the Irrigation Department constructed an embankment and two holes measuring 100ft. and 60 ft. were left open and due to these gaps, the water comes on the cultivable land of the plaintiff and land became sub-merged causing loss and damage to the plaintiff since 1992. He further stated that prior to being sub-merged the land produced Paddy 10 quintals, Wheat and Garma Mung, two quintals each. The average loss of plaintiff is Rs. 9000/- per acre per year. This witness has also stated that the embankment was constructed in his presence with the consent of the villagers using government fund. He has stated that his land was also sub-merged. 18. So far as P.W. 2 is concerned, he has also supported the case of the plaintiff and stated that due to gaps in the embankment, water comes in the cultivable land of the plaintiff and land became sub-merged and due to that loss occurred to the plaintiff @ Rs. 9000/- per acre per year. 18. So far as P.W. 2 is concerned, he has also supported the case of the plaintiff and stated that due to gaps in the embankment, water comes in the cultivable land of the plaintiff and land became sub-merged and due to that loss occurred to the plaintiff @ Rs. 9000/- per acre per year. In his cross examination, he has stated that the village is surrounded by hills and forest and that rain water does not come in his village from the hill. At the same time, this witness has admitted that there is railway line to the right of embankment and railway line is 7 to 8 feet higher to the level of village and there is gap left below the railway line for the water to pass and that the railway line is not affected by river water. 19. So far as P.W. 3 is concerned, he has also supported the case of the plaintiff. However, in his cross examination, he has stated that in the eastern side of the land, there is railway track and to protect from hill water, there are three vents under the railway track. He has further stated that the construction of embankment was started in the year 1988 and finished in the year 1990 and the gaps were there from very beginning. 20. So far as P.W.-4 is concerned, this witness has also supported the case of the plaintiff and in his cross examination he has stated that the land of the plaintiff is surrounded by river and hill and that the embankment was constructed for the purposes of irrigation and that around 20 to 25 acres of land were affected by the embankment. 21. The P.W. 5 is the plaintiff himself and has supported his case to submit that he has 8 acres of land in the eastern side adjacent to the embankment and in his cross examination, he has denied that the land adjacent to the embankment is naturally affected by water from high hill as well as flood from river Koel and sand. 22. So far as defendants are concerned, they have examined four witnesses. The defendant witness no. 1 has stated that the government has constructed a barrage on the river Koel in the village Kadal Kurmi and near the barrage, afflux bandh was also constructed. 22. So far as defendants are concerned, they have examined four witnesses. The defendant witness no. 1 has stated that the government has constructed a barrage on the river Koel in the village Kadal Kurmi and near the barrage, afflux bandh was also constructed. He has stated that on the eastern side of the bandh, there is railway track and on the eastern side of the railway track there is high hill. The land of the plaintiff is situated in between the railway track and the bandh and the lands in this area are not useful for cultivation as these lands are filled up with water from the hills. He has identified the village map of Kadal Kurmi and has stated that the village land is situated between embankment and the hill. 23. So far as D.W.-2 is concerned, he has also supported the case of the defendants and has stated that there are no paddy field in the area, for the reason that the hill water is flowing by this to the river and that there is vent in the railway track for flow of water and that there is no loss to the villagers whatsoever due to construction of bandh and efflux bandh. He has stated that in the survey map on the eastern side of embankment, there is sub-merged plot and that the barrage was constructed for the purposes of irrigation. 24. The D.W.-3 is the Executive Engineer of the Irrigation Department and he had strongly denied the case of plaintiff and stated that it is wrong for the plaintiff to say that due to gap which was left in the bandh, his cultivation was damaged. He has stated that on the eastern side on the river, there is embankment and on further eastern side there is a railway track and on the eastern side of the railway track, there is high hill. For the exit of hill water, there are five vents in the railway track and the gap in the embankment is for exit of the eastern water. He has also stated that the lands were sub-merged prior to construction of embankment and that there is a scheme of the government to fill up the gap and take further measure so that the entire area is benefited. 25. He has also stated that the lands were sub-merged prior to construction of embankment and that there is a scheme of the government to fill up the gap and take further measure so that the entire area is benefited. 25. The D.W.-4 is the Assistant Engineer of the Department and he has stated that it is wrong to say that due to gap in the embankment, the cultivable land of the plaintiff is affected. The barrage is constructed on the north Koel River and on the eastern side of the embankment, there is railway track and hill and the barrage is constructed to save the adjacent land from being sub-merged and before the construction of this barrage, the plaintiff’s land was facing danger from devastating flood from the river and in order to protect the villagers, the Government has undertaken the construction. Finding of this Court on the 1st point of determination. 26. So far as the 1st point of determination is concerned, this Court finds that specific case of the plaintiff as per the plaint is that the defendant no. 1 sanctioned construction of embankment on eastern part of river Koel for the purposes of saving adjacent land from being sub-merged. Further case is that upon construction of embankment, two gaps were left and the water from embankment was flowing into the land of the plaintiff which sub-merged the land of the plaintiff, due to which plaintiff suffered damage of Rs. 6,00,000/- for the period from 1992 to 1999. Further case of the plaintiff is that in reply to notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the defendants had accepted the entire fact that the plaintiff has suffered due to the act of the defendants. 27. This Court finds that admittedly the sanction of embankment was for the purposes of saving the adjacent land of river Koel from being sub-merged and land of the plaintiff is admittedly adjacent to the river and the constructed embankment in which certain gaps were left. This Court further finds that the notices under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure were duly exhibited as Exhibit-2 (dated 17.06.1999), Exhibit-2/A (dated 08.05.2000) and Exhibit-2/B (dated 05.01.2000). The reply to notice dated 08.05.2000 has been exhibited as Exhibit-3/A (dated 12.05.2000). This Court further finds that the notices under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure were duly exhibited as Exhibit-2 (dated 17.06.1999), Exhibit-2/A (dated 08.05.2000) and Exhibit-2/B (dated 05.01.2000). The reply to notice dated 08.05.2000 has been exhibited as Exhibit-3/A (dated 12.05.2000). Upon perusal of the Exhibit-2 dated 17.06.1999, it is apparent that it has been specifically stated therein that the barrage and embankment was constructed with two gaps for collection of water from hill area. From perusal of the deposition of the aforesaid witnesses on behalf of the plaintiff, it is apparent that they have deposed to state that the land of plaintiff was sub-merged due to embankment and water entered into the land of the plaintiff from the river through the embankment. They have further deposed that prior to construction of embankment and barrage, there was sufficient yield from cultivation over the land of the plaintiff. On the contrary, the case of the defendants is that the land of the plaintiff was always affected by flood from the river as well as due to water flowing from the hill side. The water from the hill side was flowing under the railway line towards the land of the plaintiff and thereafter through the two gaps in the barrage/embankment. The oral evidence adduced on behalf of the plaintiff is contrary to the case of the plaintiff in the plaint, in as much as, the plaintiff had himself stated in the plaint that barrage and embankment was to save the adjoining land from being sub-merged and admittedly the land of the plaintiff was adjoining land. Further the oral evidence on behalf of the plaintiff is contrary to the statement in the notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure dated 17.06.1999 which clearly stated that the two gaps were left in the embankment for collection of water from hill side. 28. This Court also finds that the claim of the plaintiff that the entire facts and allegations were admitted by the defendant in reply to the notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure as contained in Memo No. 442 dated 12.05.2000 (Exhibit-3) is also contrary to the record. 28. This Court also finds that the claim of the plaintiff that the entire facts and allegations were admitted by the defendant in reply to the notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure as contained in Memo No. 442 dated 12.05.2000 (Exhibit-3) is also contrary to the record. Upon perusal of Exhibit-3/A, this Court finds that it has been specifically mentioned therein that: - (a) Barrage and afflux bandh was constructed on the right side of river Koel to save adjacent land being sub-merged by afflux in the river during irrigation season. The village Kadal Kurmi is situated on right side of the river. (b) The gaps in the embankment were left to facilitate drainage of water coming from the hills flowing under the railway line and if gaps are closed, it will not serve the interest of the plaintiff and others and there was a proposal to provide drainage channel and thereafter the gaps will be closed. (c) Although it was admitted that water also come to the land of the plaintiff through the gaps during irrigation season, but it was also stated that even prior to construction, the land of the plaintiff was affected due to water from hills flowing under the railway track as well as due to flood from the river during irrigation season. Upon perusal of Exhibit-3/A, it is clear that the reply of the defendants clearly indicated that the land of the plaintiff was affected and sub-merged irrespective of construction of barrage/embankment and was affected due to water from the hill side as well as flood from the river. 29. This Court finds that P.W.-2 has stated that Mauza is surrounded by hills and jungle and he has stated that water from the hills does not enter his village. So far as the location of the property involved in this case is concerned, he has admitted that the property is on the western side of railway line and the land is towards eastern side of the embankment. He has also deposed that there are certain gaps below the railway line for drainage of water and has stated that the rain water does not enter his village from the hills. He has also deposed that there are certain gaps below the railway line for drainage of water and has stated that the rain water does not enter his village from the hills. This Court also finds that so far as P.W.-3 is concerned, he has stated that in order to save the railway line from the water flowing from the hills, there are certain gaps below the railway line, but the water cannot cross the railway line. So far as P.W.-4 is concerned, he has admitted in his cross examination that the railway line has suffered damages on account of water from the river as well as from the hills. 30. So far as the evidence of the defendants are concerned, this Court finds that the defendants had produced sketch maps before the learned court below, which were marked as Exhibits and from the evidence of the defendants, it is clear that the property involved in this case is situated between the embankment and the railway line and on the other side of the railway line, there are hills. The specific case of the defendants is that the property of the plaintiff was always affected by the water flowing from the hills through the tunnels below the railway line as well as flood water from river. The P.W.-3 has admitted in his evidence that the railway line was affected not only by the water flowing from the hills, but also from the river water. Thus, from the conjoint reading of the evidence which was adduced before the learned court below, this Court finds that the gaps below the railway line was for the flow of water from the hills and on the other side was the land of the appellant through which the water from the hills flowed and accordingly, there is enough evidence on record to hold that the land of the appellant was already affected by water flowing from the hills towards his plot through the vent under railway line. This Court further finds that the water from the river also affected the land and the land was already sub-merged which is the specific case of the defendants in the written statement. This Court finds that the plaintiff was facing danger to his land by devastating flood of river Koel even before the construction of the barrage. This Court further finds that the water from the river also affected the land and the land was already sub-merged which is the specific case of the defendants in the written statement. This Court finds that the plaintiff was facing danger to his land by devastating flood of river Koel even before the construction of the barrage. Accordingly, this Court finds that on the one hand there was natural flow of water from the hill towards the river passing through the land of the plaintiff which sub-merged the land of the plaintiff and additionally the land of the plaintiff was also sub-merged due to flood in the river Koel during irrigation season. It has also come in evidence that the embankment was built with the consent of the villagers and for the benefit of the villagers and it was also proposed that the channel for drainage of water was to be built and the gaps were also to be closed. 31. This Court holds that in the aforesaid circumstances, the land of the plaintiff was not affected due to act and omission on the part of the defendants, but it was already affected prior to construction of the embankment due to flowing water through the hills and flood from the river. This Court finds that the learned trial court while deciding issue nos. 5 and 6 held that the gaps in the embankment were essential for the larger benefit of the villagers to save the village from rainfall from the hills as well as the river and also held that the plaintiff was facing danger to his land by devastating flood of river Koel, even before construction of barrage and the land of the plaintiff was not useful for cultivation as they are sub-merged land. The learned court below also held that there was no sufficient documentary evidence in connection with yield of any grain in connection with the property and ultimately the learned court below held that the plaintiff has not suffered any damage as claimed by the plaintiff after holding that the land of the plaintiff was already affected and sub-merged since prior to the construction of the barrage. Accordingly, this Court decides the 1st point for determination, against the plaintiff and in favour of the respondents and see no reason to differ with the findings recorded by the learned trial court. Accordingly, this Court decides the 1st point for determination, against the plaintiff and in favour of the respondents and see no reason to differ with the findings recorded by the learned trial court. Finding of this court on the 2nd point of determination. 32. So far as the second point of determination regarding limitation is concerned, this Court finds that the learned trial court rightly held that the claim was barred by limitation under Article 86 of the Limitation Act, 1963 as the period for filing a suit for compensation for diverting the water course is three years from the date of diversion. In the instant case, as per the case of the plaintiff due to acts and omissions of the defendants the land of the plaintiff became sub-merged and this happened as back as in the year 1992 and accordingly learned court below has rightly held that the claim for compensation stood time bared in the year 1995 and the suit has been filed in the year 2000. In the plaint itself, the plaintiff has mentioned that there has been delay in filing the suit and initial the cause of action for filing the suit, as per the case of the plaintiff himself, arose sometimes in the year 1992, when the land of the plaintiff was affected on account of construction of the embankment with gaps. In the instant case, the suit has been filed claiming damages in the year 2000 and accordingly this court is of the considered view that the suit was barred by limitation. This court further finds that the point of limitation has been decided against the plaintiff by the learned trial court by referring to Article 86 of the limitation Act, 1963. This Court finds no reason to differ from the findings of the learned trial court and accordingly the second point of determination is also decided against the appellant and in favour of the defendants. 33. This Court further finds that so far as the argument of the appellant is concerned, there is continuing cause of action in this case and accordingly the benefit of Section 22 of the Limitation Act, 1963 has to be given, is devoid of any merit. In the instant case, the suit was filed for damages and there was no prayer for any other relief as the suit was for damages. In the instant case, the suit was filed for damages and there was no prayer for any other relief as the suit was for damages. In the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in (2006) 13 SCC 470 (Sankar Dastidar vs. Banjula Dastidar (Smt) and Another) it has been held that claim for damages cannot be governed by Article 22 and cannot be said to be a continuing wrong. Paragraph 8 of the said judgment is quoted as follows:- “8. A suit for damages, in our opinion, stands on a different footing vis-à-vis a continuing wrong in respect of enjoyment of one’s right in a property. When a right of way is claimed whether public or private over a certain land over which the tortfeasor has no right of possession, the breaches would be continuing one. It is, however, indisputable that unless the wrong is a continuing one, period of limitation does not stop running. Once the period begins to run, it does not stop except where the provisions of Section 22 would apply.” 34. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid finding, the instant appeal is hereby dismissed.