1. The plaintiff firm has lost its suit in the Small Cause Court on the ground of limitation. I have to see whether the judgment is wrong. The plaintiffs deal in timber and the defendant does the business of sawing wood. The plaint says that between certain dates a certain sum of money was advanced to the defendant and the defendant sawed a certain quantity of timber from one date to another mentioned in the plaint and that thereby he did work worth a certain amount. Deducting the value of the work done, the plaintiff claimed the balance oft his money lent.
2. The Court below held that limitation began to run from the last date of advance, and the suit, having been instituted beyond three years from that date, was time-barred. The learned Counsel in this Court has argued that limitation began to run from the last date of the work done. His argument is that upto that date the defendant was making some payment, and he committed a breach of contract on that date. The learned Counsel would apply Article 115, Limitation Act. In my opinion, there can be no manner of doubt that Article 57, Limitation Act, applies. The case is similar to that of a party advancing money to another and the borrower repaying the money lent from time to time. No single contract is disclosed by the plaint by virtue of which it may be argued that the breach of contract took place on a particular date and that date should be the starting point of limitation. In this view, the decision of the Court below is right, though the way in which the learned Judge has put his reasons is not correct. In the circumstances, the revision is dismissed' with costs.