JUDGMENT : (H.P. SANDESH, J.) This matter is listed for admission. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant, the learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 3 and the learned counsel for respondent Nos.4 to 6. 2. This second appeal is filed against the concurrent finding of the Trial Court and dismissal of the suit on merits as well as on limitation, which is affirmed by the Appellate Court. 3. The factual matrix of the case of the plaintiff before the Trial Court is that the plaintiff is a class-1 Civil Contractor, he undertakes contract work from Government Institutions, quasi Government Institutions, private parties etc. It is stated that during 2000-2001, the Hakathur Grama Panchayath had entrusted the work of forming road to Biligeri-Bakka bane paisary colony in Sy.No.87/1 of the said village, leveling of ground work near Aiyappa Temple and formation of play ground near the said colony. The plaintiff had successfully completed the said work as per the directions and norms of the said Grama Panchayath and concerned Engineer. It is contended that the concerned qualified Engineer visited the spot and estimated the total cost of the said work to the tune of Rs.5,30,000/- only. The plaintiff submitted the bill to the Grama Panchayath and demanded for payment, but defendant No.7 sought time on the ground that the amount has to be sanctioned by the Madikeri Taluk Panchayath. The defendant No.7 failed to make payment by giving false and frivolous excuses. The plaintiff had borrowed loan from bank, other financial institutions to complete the work. The plaintiff is not in a position to repay the same due to non-payment of money by defendant No.7. The plaintiff got issued a legal notice to defendant No.7 demanding the payment. The defendant No.7 received the notice and assured the plaintiff orally that he would contact higher authorities and take necessary steps to make the payment, but he did not made any payment. Therefore, the plaintiff again issued notice to defendant No.7, but he informed that payment cannot be made on some technical grounds. Hence, the suit was filed. 4. In pursuance of the suit summons, defendant Nos.1 to 3 appeared through the DGP and filed the written statement and defendant Nos.4 to 8 appeared through their respective counsel. The defendant Nos.7 and 8 filed their separate written statement. Hence, the suit was filed. 4. In pursuance of the suit summons, defendant Nos.1 to 3 appeared through the DGP and filed the written statement and defendant Nos.4 to 8 appeared through their respective counsel. The defendant Nos.7 and 8 filed their separate written statement. The defendant Nos.4 to 7 filed memo to adopt the written statement of defendant No.7 as written statement of defendant Nos.4 to 6 and the learned DGP filed memo to adopt the written statement of defendant Nos.7 and 8 as written statement of defendant Nos.1 to 3. 5. The defendant No.7 in the written statement contended that Hakathur Grama Panchayath had entrusted the work of forming road to Biligeri bane paisari colony in Sy.No.87/1, but not given any work near Aiyappa temple for formation of play ground near the said colony in the year 2000-2001. The defendant No.7 denied that the plaintiff successfully completed the work as per the directions of the Grama Panchayath. It is contended that these defendants are not liable to pay any amount. The suit is barred by limitation. It is contended that the alleged entrusted work is not mentioned in any action plan prepared by the Grama Panchayath or Taluk Panchayath. It is contended that the plaintiff has to prove the entrustment of the work. The Junior Engineer attached to the Grama Panchayath have no right to give private estimation for Rs.5,30,000/- . It is contended that the Secretary, Hakathur Grama Panchayath paid an amount of Rs.64,400/- to the plaintiff in seven stages and the plaintiff has recovered the said sum for the work conducted by him and prayed the Court to dismiss the suit. 6. The Trial Court having considered the grounds urged in the suit as well as the written statement, framed the issues with regard to the liability as well as limitation and allowed the parties to lead evidence. The plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked the documents at Exs.P.1 to 22. On the other hand, the defendants examined two witnesses as D.W.1 and D.W.2 and got marked the documents at Exs.D.1 and 2. The plaintiff examined himself as P.W.1 and got marked the documents at Exs.P.1 to 22. On the other hand, the defendants examined two witnesses as D.W.1 and D.W.2 and got marked the documents at Exs.D.1 and 2. The Trial Court having considered both oral and documentary evidence placed on record, answered issue Nos.1, 2, 5 and 6 in the negative in coming to the conclusion that the plaintiff was unsuccessful in placing on record with regard to successfully completing the entrusted work on contract basis as per the norms of the Grama Panchayath and the defendants are not liable to pay Rs.5,30,000/- as claimed by the plaintiff. The Trial Court answered issue Nos.3 in the affirmative in coming to the conclusion that the suit is barred by limitation and the claim made by the plaintiff that work was done according to the plaintiff in 2000-2001 and suit was filed in 2016 and the suit ought to have been filed within three years as per Article 18 of the Limitation Act . 7. Being aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit on merits as well as limitation, an appeal is filed in R.A.No.14/2021. The Appellate Court having considered both oral and documentary evidence placed on record and also the grounds urged in the appeal, extracted the grounds and also formulated the point whether the Trial Court committed an error in dismissing the suit and whether the Trial Court is right in concluding that the plaintiff failed to prove that he had completed the said work which was entrusted to him. The Trial Court comes to the conclusion that the plaintiff has failed to prove that the defendants are liable to pay the amount of Rs.5,30,000/- and affirmed the order of the Trial Court that the suit is barred by limitation by answering point No.4 in the affirmative. 8. Being aggrieved by the concurrent finding, the present second appeal is filed before this Court. 9. The main contention of the learned counsel for the appellant is that both the Courts were not justified in dismissing the suit. The learned counsel contend that defendant No.7 in its written statement admitted that Hakathur Grama Panchayath had entrusted the work of forming road to Biligeri bane paisari colony in Sy.No.87/1, but not given any work near Aiyappa Temple for formation of playground near the said colony in the year 2000-2001. The learned counsel contend that defendant No.7 in its written statement admitted that Hakathur Grama Panchayath had entrusted the work of forming road to Biligeri bane paisari colony in Sy.No.87/1, but not given any work near Aiyappa Temple for formation of playground near the said colony in the year 2000-2001. The defendant also contended in the written statement that the plaintiff successfully completed the work as per the directions of the Grama Panchayath. The learned counsel contend that the plaintiff relied upon the documents at Exs.P.2 to 7, 10 and 13, which indicate that there are clear admissions with regard to the work entrusted to the appellant. Inspite of the work was entrusted, both the Courts erroneously comes to the conclusion that the work was not entrusted and not placed on record the material for entrusting the work and hence this Court has to frame the substantial question of law that both the Courts have committed an error in considering the material on record and not justified in dismissing the suit of the plaintiff and also the appeal. Hence, it requires interference of this Court. 10. Per contra, the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 3 would submit that though there is an admission in the written statement of defendant No.7, the same is not in respect of the claim made by the plaintiff and no doubt, other work entrusted for Rs.64,400/- was paid in respect of the work done and not in respect of the claim made by the plaintiff. 11. The learned counsel for respondent Nos.4 to 6 would contend that the written statement filed by defendant No.7 is clear regarding entrustment of the work for formation of road to Biligeri bane paisary colony in Sy.No.87/1 of the said village, but not given any work near Aiyappa Temple and formation of play ground near the said colony and no such entrustment work was given to the plaintiff and also not placed any document for having entrusted the work. Both the Courts having considered both oral and documentary evidence placed on record, rightly rejected the claim of the plaintiff in the absence of any work entrustment order. Both the Courts having considered both oral and documentary evidence placed on record, rightly rejected the claim of the plaintiff in the absence of any work entrustment order. Regarding limitation is concerned also, discussed the same in detail that admittedly the work according to the plaintiff was done in 2000-2001 and the suit was filed in 2016 and the very contention that correspondence will renew the limitation cannot be accepted as contended by the learned counsel for the appellant and prays this Court to dismiss the second appeal as there is no substantial question of law. 12. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and also having perused the material available on record, particularly the averments made in the plaint, in the plaint claim is made for an amount of Rs.5,30,000/- from the defendants along with interest. It is important to note that in the plaint averments, it is the specific case of the plaintiff that Hakathur Grama Panchayath had entrusted the work of formation of road to Biligeri-Bakka bane paisary colony in Sy.No.87/1 of the said village, leveling of ground work near Aiyappa Temple and formation of play ground near the said colony. Having considered the claim is concerned i.e., in respect of work of formation of road to Biligeri-Bakka bane paisary, the same is not disputed by the defendants and in the written statement of defendant No.7 the same is admitted, but took the defence that no other work was entrusted for leveling of ground work near Aiyappa Temple and formation of play ground near the said colony. The plaintiff relied upon the document of estimation for road development, proceedings of Village Panchayath, proceedings of the Deputy Commissioner, certified copies of the office correspondence, proposal by Taluk Panchayath, Madikeri, application for releasing money, endorsement by PDO, application by the plaintiff to PDA, report given by PDO and the same has been discussed by the Trial Court and comes to the conclusion that for having entrusted the work in respect of leveling of ground work near Aiyappa Temple and formation of play ground near the said colony, no such order of entrustment is placed on record and detail discussion was made while considering issue Nos.1 to 3. The Trial Court also taken note of the documents relied upon by the plaintiff and each of the documents were discussed i.e. Exs.P.1 to 6 and particularly relied upon Ex.P.6 and having considered those documents, comes to the conclusion that nothing is placed on record for having work order was issued in favour of the plaintiff entrusting the work in respect of those two works which have been disputed by the defendants. The Trial Court observed that in the absence of the relevant document, it cannot come to the conclusion that the plaintiff has successfully carried out the work entrusted. The Junior Engineer of the Taluk Panchayath visited the spot and gave the estimation in terms of Ex.P.2 and the same cannot be believed as the same is not an approved document. There is no any other material available to show when he has visited the spot and how he has estimated the work and the approval of the estimation and the same is considered by the Trial Court. 13. With regard to the limitation aspect also, specific issue was framed i.e., issue No.3 and the same has been considered by the Trial Court in paragraph Nos.23 to 26 that suit is not filed within three years and as per Article 18 of the Limitation Act , the suit has to be filed within three years and there is no acknowledgment acknowledging the liability within the period of three years and also correspondence is only after 2009 and 2014 and hence comes to the conclusion that the suit is barred by limitation. 14. The Appellate Court while re-considering and re-assessing the material available on record, taken note of each and every documents which have been placed by the plaintiff i.e., Exs.P.2 and 3, which has been considered in paragraph Nos.31, 32 and 33 and Ex.P.4 in paragraph No.34 and in respect of Ex.P.5 at paragraph Nos.36 and 37. The Appellate Court also taken note of for having made the payment of Rs.64,400/- to the plaintiff. The Appellate Court also taken note of for having made the payment of Rs.64,400/- to the plaintiff. Ex.P.5 also shows that after the Secretary of Hakathur Grama Panchayath has given such a requisition on 15.02.2009, the concerned had sent that recommendation to the Superintendent of Accounts and afterwards, the Taluk Panchayath authority concluded that there is/was no document in the office concerned to conclude that Ravi Chengappa (plaintiff herein) had been entrusted such works and Ravi Chengappa has completed the said works and there was no discussion in this connection, hence it was not possible to give any amount to Sri Ravi Chengappa. In paragraph No.38, discussion was made that in Ex.P.5 there is no indication that on what basis the Secretary of Hakathur Grama Panchayath has made such recommendation to the Taluk Panchayath and higher officials. Each and every documents of the plaintiff, which has been placed on record is discussed by the Appellate Court in paragraph No.45 and comes to the conclusion that the plaintiff has not produced anything to show that the said Ashok Kumar, the then Junior engineer attached to that Panchayath, was the Executive Officer and hence he had or has the power of inspection and supervision etc. Hence, at first blush it creates an impression that the said Ashok Kumar never had any power of inspection. Hence, the so called submission made by said Ashok Kumar to the effect that he requested the plaintiff to form the road and subsequently the plaintiff completed the work entrusted to him and the same is not substantiated by placing any document of entrustment. Having re-assessed the material available on record, the Appellate Court comes to the conclusion that nothing is placed on record for having entrusted the work in respect of unadmitted work. The Appellate Court considered the matter on merits and also considered the point for consideration in respect of limitation i.e., issue No.4 and taken note of that claim was not made within time and there was a long gap of 15 to 16 years in claiming the dues. In paragraph Nos.73 to 75 discussed with regard to the limitation aspect also. 15. Having taken note of the reasoning given by the Trial Court, the Trial Court has given the fact finding with regard to the entrustment of work and consideration of question of law in respect of limitation is concerned. In paragraph Nos.73 to 75 discussed with regard to the limitation aspect also. 15. Having taken note of the reasoning given by the Trial Court, the Trial Court has given the fact finding with regard to the entrustment of work and consideration of question of law in respect of limitation is concerned. The Appellate Court also taken note of both question of fact and question of law. The very ground urged in the second appeal by the learned counsel for the appellant with regard to the admission is that this Court has to frame the substantial question of law. No doubt, defendant No.7 in the written statement pleaded with regard to the entrustment of work with regard to Hathakur Grama Panchayath i.e., formation of road, but specific denial was made that no work was entrusted near Aiyappa Temple for formation of play ground near the said colony in the year 2000-2001. The defendant No.7 denied the very claim made by the plaintiff and the same is also with regard to the factual aspect is concerned and no question of law is found in the case on hand. Both the Courts applied their mind and considered the dispute with regard to the question of fact and question of law and in the absence of substantial question of law, the question of framing the substantial question of law does not arise. No ground is made out to frame the substantial question of law. 16. In view of the discussions made above, I pass the following: ORDER The second appeal is dismissed.