JUDGMENT ON BOARD : 1. The present First Appeal has been preferred by the Appellant/Plaintiff against the judgment and decree dated 16.09.2005 passed by the XIIIth Additional District Judge (F.T.C.), Raipur (C.G.), in Civil Suit No.14-B/2004. By way of the said impugned judgment, the learned trial Court has dismissed the plaintiff's recovery suit on the ground of limitation and want of proof. 2. Facts leading to the instant first appeal are that the appellant/plaintiff has instituted a recovery suit against the defendant/respondent before the trial Court, for recovery amount of Rs.1,93,867/- on the ground that plaintiff’s firm is engaged in a business of ‘water proofing treatment’ since 1997. The defendant had called the proposal for necessary water proofing work on hotel building situated at Mahoba Bazar, Raipur (C.G.), total admeasuring area of work was 2519 sq. meters. For the purpose of said work, the plaintiff and defendant entered in to an agreement. It was initially proposal/estimate submitted by the plaintiff to execute the work @ Rs.350/- per sq. meter, but after the negotiation between the plaintiff and the defendant Rs.315/- per sq. meter rate had been agreed between the parties. 3. As per negotiation between the parties, the plaintiff started water proofing work in the month of May, 2000 and completed the work on 09.02.2001. Costing of entire work was around Rs.7,20,773/- out of such amount, the defendant time to time paid of Rs.4,75,000/- to the plaintiff, on account of executed work on the basis of bills. Ultimately the plaintiff completed the works on 09.02.2001 and submitted final bill to the defendant on 30.05.2001, but the defendant failed to pay the amount of final bill dated 30.05.2001. Therefore, the appellant/plaintiff issued two successive legal notices upon the defendant on 20.10.2001 and 27.05.2003 respectively. The defendant did not pay the balance amount to the plaintiff on account of executed work by the plaintiff then, the plaintiff filed a civil suit for recovery of Rs.1,93,867/-. 4. The trial Court after hearing of the parties finally dismissed the suit by impugned judgment and decree, holding that plaintiff’s suit is barred by law of limitation. Further, plaintiff has failed to proof the pleadings against the defendant, therefore, plaintiff is not entitled for money decree as prayed in the plaint. Hence, this appeal. 5. 4. The trial Court after hearing of the parties finally dismissed the suit by impugned judgment and decree, holding that plaintiff’s suit is barred by law of limitation. Further, plaintiff has failed to proof the pleadings against the defendant, therefore, plaintiff is not entitled for money decree as prayed in the plaint. Hence, this appeal. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/plaintiff submits that the learned trial Court has wrongly came to conclusion that plaintiff’s suit comes under the Article 18 of the Limitation Act, therefore, plaintiff’s suit is barred by limitation. He further submits that the trial Court has came to conclusion on the basis of legal notices Ex.P/20 and Ex.P/21 that the plaintiff has pleaded that work was completed on 09.02.2001, therefore, suit ought to have been filed within three years, therefore, suit is barred by law, but the trial Court has only relied upon Para-3 of the legal notices, but failed to see and appreciate Para-4 of the notices where it is mentioned the final bill dated 30.05.2001 which had been submitted to the defendant, therefore, cause of action for filing of suit will be arising and limitation for suit would starts from 30.05.2001, hence, suit is in time as ought to have been held by the trial Court. He further submits that the plaintiff in Para-16 of the plaint had categorically submitted to the Court that the plaintiff has completed the work in the month of May, 2001, therefore, the trial Court should have taken into consideration of Para- 16 of the plaint, while considering the point of cause of action. The trial Court ignoring the pleadings of the plaintiff. Therefore, it is prayed that suitable order be passed in favour of the appellant/plaintiff. 6. The plaintiff has placed reliance on Venkatesh Construction Company Vs. Karnataka Vidyuth Karkhane Limited (KAVIKA) AIR 2016 SC 553 in Para 14 & 16 are provide as under : “14. The High Court took note of clause 11 of the contract dated 12.02.1992 which states that the contractor is not authorized to do any extra work or make any alteration without the previous consent in writing of the respondent. Karnataka Vidyuth Karkhane Limited (KAVIKA) AIR 2016 SC 553 in Para 14 & 16 are provide as under : “14. The High Court took note of clause 11 of the contract dated 12.02.1992 which states that the contractor is not authorized to do any extra work or make any alteration without the previous consent in writing of the respondent. High Court set aside the findings recorded by the trial Court holding that the parties are governed by the terms of the written contract and any variation with the terms of the agreement was required to be done strictly adhering to clause 11 of the contract. While saying so, the High Court brushed aside the admission by DW-1 that extra work was done by the appellant and the High Court was not right in ignoring the same to hold that the admission of DW-1 cannot have the effect on the contractual obligation of the parties. It is to be pointed out that the respondent has not raised the plea relying upon clause 11 of the contract. Further, by perusal of Ex.P2 dated 20.12.1991, a letter addressed by the appellant to the respondent informing the respondent about the extra work which needs to be done and the fact that PW-4 was engaged by the respondent to prepare the new design for the work it is evident that the respondent was aware of the fact of the change in the nature of work and that there is alteration in the work done by the appellant. When the evidence and material clearly depict the change of nature of work involved and when the extra work to be done was also admitted by DW-1, parties cannot be expected to go for a revised agreement/contract. Moreover, having regard to the fact that the work was to be completed within a specified time-frame, the parties cannot be expected to for a second round of negotiation and reframe the terms and conditions of the work. While so, the High Court was not right in placing reliance upon clause 11 of the contract to reverse the findings of fact recorded by the trial Court. 16. The Appellate Court may not interfere with the finding of the trial court unless the finding recorded by the trial Court is erroneous or the trial court ignored the evidence on record. 16. The Appellate Court may not interfere with the finding of the trial court unless the finding recorded by the trial Court is erroneous or the trial court ignored the evidence on record. The High Court reversed the decree passed by the trial court without discussing oral and documentary evidence and several grounds raised before the trial court. The High Court veered away from the main issue and went on to elaborate on the law of arbitration and the mode of setting aside the arbitral award under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, which in our view, was not warranted. Without considering the oral and documentary evidence, the High Court erred in interfering with the factual findings recorded by the trial court and the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside.” 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/defendant opposes the argument raised by counsel for the appellant/plaintiff, supported the judgment of trial Court and submits that order passed by the learned trial Court is just and proper, needs no interference and the plaint filed by the appellant/plaintiff be dismissed. 8. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and perused the records with utmost circumspection. 9. The learned trial Court has dismissed the suit on the ground of limitation. It is undisputed facts that the appellant is engaged in a business of water proofing treatment and the defendant had called the proposal for necessary water proofing work on hotel building situated at Mahoba Bazar, Raipur (C.G.). Total admeasuring area of work was 2519 sq. meters. As per the appellant version, he had completed the work on 09.02.2001 and submitted the final bill to the respondent/defendant on 30.05.2001, but the defendant failed to pay the amount of final bill dated 30.05.2001. Therefore, the appellant issued two successive legal notices upon the defendant on 20.10.2001 and 27.05.2003 respectively. 10. It is also undisputed fact that the defendant did not pay the balance amount to the plaintiff on account of executed work by the plaintiff then the plaintiff filed a civil suit for recovery of Rs.1,93,867/- on 23.04.2004 before the trial Court. The leading grievance of the plaintiff is that in Para-16 of the plaint and statement of the plaintiff had categorically submitted that the plaintiff has completed the work in the month of May, 2001. The leading grievance of the plaintiff is that in Para-16 of the plaint and statement of the plaintiff had categorically submitted that the plaintiff has completed the work in the month of May, 2001. Therefore, the trial Court should have taken into consideration of Para-16 of the plaint, while considering the point of cause of action. 11. The plaintiff has submitted bill on 30.05.2001 (Ex.P/18) which shows that amount of bill dated 20.02.2001 is Rs.1,78,116/- and worked done after this bill (water proofing work excluding concreting) : (a) 2 Nos. Tank Base = 2 x 2.137 @ 220/- = 940.00 (b) Area of porch = 67.32 sq. meters @ 220/- = 14,810.00 Total amount Rs.1,93,866.00/- 12. On that ground, learned counsel for the plaintiff argued that his suit was within limitation. Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963 provided that for the price of work done by the plaintiff for the defendant at his request, where no time was fixed for payment. The period of limitation, three years from the date when the work was done. Mr. Ashok Shrivastava (PW-1) deposed that extra work was completed in the month of May, 2001 and final bill was raised as per Ex.P/18. Dilip Kumar (PW-3) has supported the version of plaintiff but Ex.P/18 does not shows that on which date work was completed. Ex.P/18 only shows that bill raised by the plaintiff to the defendant on 30.05.2001. 13. Legal notice is very important factor in this case, first legal notice has sent by the plaintiff to the defendant vide Ex.P/20 on 20.10.2001 in Para-3 of the said notice averment made as under : “That my client started the water-proofing work in the month of May, 2000 and completed the same on 09.02.2001 costing around Rs. 7,20,773/-; out of which you have, from time to time you have paid Rs.4,75,000/- to my client.” 14. Again, the plaintiff has sent legal notice to the defendant vide Ex.P/21 on 27.05.2003, after three years of completion of work assigned to him. In Para-3 of the said notice mentioned as under : “That my client started the water-proofing work in the month of May, 2000 and completed the same on 09.02.2001 costing around Rs. 7,20,773/-; out of which, from time to time you have paid Rs.4,75,000/- to my client.” 15. In Para-3 of the said notice mentioned as under : “That my client started the water-proofing work in the month of May, 2000 and completed the same on 09.02.2001 costing around Rs. 7,20,773/-; out of which, from time to time you have paid Rs.4,75,000/- to my client.” 15. On both the notices, why the plaintiff has not mentioned a single word with regard to ‘extra work’ has completed on 30.05.2001. The work was completed on 09.02.2001 and plaintiff has instituted the recovery suit on 23.04.2004 after completion of three years. Therefore, in the opinion of this Court, the trial Court has rightly held that the suit was barred by limitation under Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963. In case of Venkatesh Construction Company (supra), it is proved that extra work was done and suit is based for payment towards extra works. However, in this case, plaintiff has sent legal notices after completion of work/extra work on 20.10.2001 and 27.05.2003, i.e., Ex.P/20 and Ex.P/21 which show the work was completed on 09.02.2001. 16. One due consideration of the submissions and contentions put forth by the counsel for the appellant/plaintiff and on perusal of the finding arrived at by the learned trial Court, this Court is of the opinion that the trial Court has duly considered all these submissions and reached to the conclusion on the basis of plaintiff’s suit is barred by law of limitation. 17. For the said reason, the instant First Appeal being devoid of merits deserves to be and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to cost(s). 18. A decree be drawn up accordingly.