Jagat Narayan, C.J.
1. This is an appeal by the plaintiff against a decree of the District Judge Bhilwara, dismissing part of his claim.
2. Tej Singh, plaintiff, took the contract for remodelling of part of Dehli-Jahazpur road at an estimated cost of Rs. 23,205/-. The work was commenced on 1.10.58 and was completed on 30.9.59. The final bill was passed on 14.2.63. The present suit was filed on 2.1.64 for the recovery of Rs. 21,537/-. It was decreed for Rs. 2,382. 78 and the rest of the claim was dismissed. The present appeal has been valued at Rs. 5,490.57. It was filed in respect of two items. One contention on behalf of the plaintiff is that the State is entitled to hire charges for road roller at Rs. 17/- per day instead of Rs. 45/- per day allowed by the trial court. The other contention is that the plaintiff is entitled to payment for consolidating the old ballast which was scraped from the road surface. The State did not file any cross-appeal or cross-objection. But the learned Additional Government Advocate contends that the suit was barred by limitation and should have been dismissed. An issue was framed on the question of limitation (issue No. 7), The contention on behalf of the plaintiff was that Article 120 of the old Limitation Act was applicable and that on behalf of the State was that Article 56 was applicable. The plaintiff relied on the decision in State of Bihar v. Rama Bhushan A.I.R. 1964 Pat. 326. The trial court was of the opinion that Article 56 was not applicable because in the present case there was an agreement between the parties in regard to the work which was to be done and the method by which the payment was to be made. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties on this question and we are of the opinion that Article 56 of the old Limitation Act is applicable. This article runs as follows:
Description of Period Time from whichsuit of limi- period beginstation to run56, For the price of Three When the workwork done by the yearsplaintiff for the is donedefendant at hisrequest, where notime has been fixedfor payment.
3. In the present case the suit is for the price of the work done by the plaintiff for the defendant at his request and no time for payment was fixed Therefore Article 56 is in terms applicable. In this connection we may refer to the decision in Bhawani Shankar v. State of Rajasthan .
4. With all respect we are unable to agree with the view taken in the Patna case A.I.R. 1964 Pat. 326.
5. We accordingly hold that the suit of the plaintiff was barred by limitation. On this account we dismiss the appeal of the appellant.
6. As the appeal is being dismissed on the technical question of limitation, we leave the parties to bear their own costs of it.