1. The only point argued is that Art. 115 Limitation Act, applies, and reliance is placed on Eusin Sirkar v. Barada Kishore Acharya  Cri. L. J. 43 and Jogesh Chandra v. Benoda Lal Roy  14 C. W. N. 122 Both these cases have been dissented from in Madhusudan Sen v. Rakhal Chandra  43 Cal. 248 where it is pointed out that the view in these cases is not consonant with that of the Privy Council in Asgar Ali Khan v. Khurshad Ali Khan  24 All. 27.
2. In the present case, there is no question of breach of contract or compensation payable for such breach. The parties were to look into the accouuts of each other to ascertain who made the larger profit and to pay over a portion to the other to equalize the profit, each trading independently of the other. That was the arrangement made, and this suit is to take such an account, and ascertain who owes whom and give a decree for the amount payable, We are unable to agree that such a suit can be treated as a suit for compensation or falls under Art. 115.
3. It is not argued that it falls under Art. 89 or any other specific article, and we must therefore, apply the general Art. 120 Limitation Act, as the lower appellate Court has done.
4. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.