[Cites 7, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
K.S.Vimala vs State Of Kerala on 23 January, 2026
Author: Sathish Ninan
Bench: Sathish Ninan
RFA No.517/2015
1
2026:KER:5299
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P. KRISHNA KUMAR
FRIDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF JANUARY 2026 / 3RD MAGHA, 1947
RFA NO. 517 OF 2015
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 15.12.2004 IN OS NO.35 OF 2000
OF I ADDITIONAL SUB COURT,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
APPELLANTS/PLAINTIFFS 2 TO 4:
1 K.S.VIMALA, W/O LATE BALASUBRAMANIAM,
KULAMLLILHADIYIL HOUSE, KUTTANKULANGARA,
POONKUNNAM P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT.
2 K.B.MANOJ, S/O.LATE BALASUBRAMANIAM
KULAMLLILHADIYIL HOUSE, KUTTANKULANGARA,, POONKUNNAM
P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT.
3 K.B.MANJU, D/O.LATE BALASUBRAMANIAM
KULAMLLILHADIYIL HOUSE, KUTTANKULANGARA,, POONKUNNAM
P.O., THRISSUR DISTRICT.
BY ADV SHRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR)
RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS:
1 THE KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD,
REP: BY ITS SECRETARY, VAIDHUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
2 THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER
ELECTRICAL DIVISION, K.S.E.B.,, KANNUR SOUTH,
KANNUR P.O., KANNUR DISTRICT.
3 THE DEPUTY CHIEF ENGINEER
RFA No.517/2015
2
2026:KER:5299
ELECTRICAL CIRCLE, K.S.E.B., THAZHA CHOVVA P.O.,
KANNUR DISTRICT.
4 THE CHIEF ENGINEER ELECTRICAL
DISTRIBUTION (NORTH), GANDHI ROAD, VAIDHUTHI BHAVAN,
KOZHIKODE.
BY ADVS.
SHRI.NIRMAL.S- FOR R2 TO R4
SRI.K.S.ANIL, SC, KSEB
THIS REGULAR FIRST APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON
19.01.2026, THE COURT ON 23.1.2016 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
RFA No.517/2015
3
2026:KER:5299
SATHISH NINAN & P. KRISHNA KUMAR, JJ.
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
R.F.A.No.517 OF 2015
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Dated this the 23rd day of January, 2026
JUDGMENT
P.Krishna Kumar, J.
The unsuccessful plaintiff in a suit for recovery of
money based on a contract is the appellant. The suit was
filed on 16.12.1997 as an indigent petition. The trial court
found that the suit was barred by limitation.
2. The parties are hereinafter referred to as they were
arrayed in the suit. The plaintiff was awarded two contracts
by the first defendant, the Kerala State Electricity Board,
on 30.01.1986 (Agreement Nos. 29/85-86 & 30/85-86) for
casting 1,500 RCC poles of 8 metres length for the
Electrical Major Section, Kannur. The plaintiff completed
the work covered by the first agreement within the extended
period, namely, on or before 30.01.1987. However, the work
covered by the second agreement was not completed within the
stipulated or extended time. According to the plaintiff, the
2026:KER:5299
delay occurred solely on account of the non-co-operation of
the defendants. Alleging that despite repeated demands the
defendants failed to effect payment, the plaintiff
instituted the suit seeking recovery of the balance amount
due under the first agreement and part-payment for the work
allegedly executed under the second agreement, claiming a
total sum of ₹47,09,732/- (Rupees Forty-Seven Lakhs Nine
Thousand Seven Hundred and Thirty-Two only) with interest.
During the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff died and his
legal heirs were impleaded as additional plaintiffs.
3. The defendants filed a written statement contending,
inter alia, that the suit was barred by limitation.
According to them, though the plaintiff completed the work
under the first agreement, he failed to commence and
complete the work under the second agreement and had cast
only 365 RCC poles, which constituted less than 25% of the
total work entrusted. The allegation that the delay was
occasioned by the laches of the defendants was specifically
denied. It was further contended that the third defendant
had issued several communications calling upon the plaintiff
2026:KER:5299
to complete the work, but he failed to do so, thereby
causing substantial loss to the defendants. According to the
defendants, the plaintiff was, in fact, liable to pay an
amount of ₹8,12,022/- to them.
4. The evidence in the case comprises the oral
testimony of PW1 and DW1 and documentary evidence marked as
Exts. A1 to A42 and Exts. B1 to B36. On an appreciation of
the oral and documentary evidence on record, the trial court
held that the suit was barred by limitation. The court
further found that the plaintiffs had failed to establish
that the non-completion of the work under the second
agreement was attributable to any fault on the part of the
defendants.
5. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the
appellants as well as the learned standing counsel appearing
for the respondents.
6. The question that arises for consideration is
whether the suit is barred by limitation and, if not,
whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the reliefs claimed.
2026:KER:5299
7. It is not in dispute that the agreements were
executed between the plaintiff and the first defendant on
30.01.1986 and that the extended period for completion of
the work under both agreements expired on 30.01.1987. It is
also not disputed that the plaintiff completed the work
under the first agreement and that certain amounts remained
unpaid by the defendants. The learned counsel appearing for
the plaintiffs contended that, if Exts. A31 and A35
communications issued by the defendants are properly
construed, it would be evident that the suit was instituted
within the period of limitation. It was argued that the
defendants denied their liability for the first time only
through Ext. B26 letter dated 15.11.1997 and that, until
then, they had been acknowledging their liability and
seeking time for settlement after verification of records.
8. Under Article 55 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the
period of limitation for a suit seeking compensation for
breach of contract commences from the date on which the
contract is broken. Under Article 18 of the Limitation Act,
1963, the period of limitation for a suit for the price of
2026:KER:5299
work done commences from the date on which the work is done.
The period of limitation in both cases is three years. It is
not in dispute that such period had expired. The contention
of the plaintiffs, however, is that the period of limitation
stood extended by virtue of acknowledgments contained in
various letters issued by the defendants. In this context,
it becomes necessary to examine the said communications.
9. Ext. A14 letter dated 18.11.1988, issued by the
second defendant, contains an acknowledgment of liability to
settle the final bill in respect of the work at Baliapattam.
Consequently, the limitation period was extended for a
further period of three years from that date, namely, up to
18.11.1991. Thereafter, Ext. A31 letter dated 29.04.1992,
issued by the third defendant, again acknowledged the
liability of the first defendant, thereby extending the
limitation period up to 29.04.1995. The final communication
relied upon by the plaintiffs is Ext. A35 dated 30.08.1995.
According to the plaintiffs, since the indigent petition was
filed within three years from the said date, the suit is
within time.
2026:KER:5299
10. We are unable to accept the said contention. An
acknowledgment made after the expiry of the period of
limitation does not save the claim. Under Section 18 of the
Limitation Act, 1963, an acknowledgment of liability made in
writing signed by the defendant would result in a fresh
period of limitation, only if it is made before the
expiration of the prescribed period. In the present case,
Ext. A31 dated 29.04.1992 extended the period of limitation
only up to 29.04.1995. Ext. A35, however, was issued only on
30.08.1995, that is, after the expiry of the extended
limitation period. By that time, the suit had already become
barred by limitation. Ext. B26 letter dated 15.11.1997 will
be of no avail to the plaintiff, as the defendants denied
their liability in the said letter.
11. The plaintiffs have no case that Ext. A35
constitutes an agreement within the meaning of Section 25 of
the Indian Contract Act, 1872. On the contrary, Ext. A35
records that the plaintiff was liable to pay a larger amount
to the defendants and that his claim, if any, would be
considered only after the conclusion of revenue recovery
2026:KER:5299
proceedings proposed to be initiated against him. The said
communication does not amount to a promise to pay a time-
barred debt so as to attract Section 25 of the Act.
Consequently, the suit is clearly barred by limitation.
12. In the above circumstances, we find no reason to
interfere with the judgment and decree passed by the trial
court.
13. The suit and the appeal were instituted without
payment of court fee on the claim that the
plaintiffs/appellants are indigent persons. Ordinarily, when
such a suit or appeal fails, the plaintiffs/appellants are
made liable to pay the court fee. However, in the present
case, it is evident that the defendants do not dispute that
certain amounts were due to the plaintiffs. The suit and the
appeal have failed solely on account of the legal bar of
limitation, particularly since, though there were several
letters acknowledging the liability of the defendants, one
among them was issued a few months beyond the period of
limitation. In such circumstances, we are of the view that
the plaintiffs are entitled to exemption from payment of
2026:KER:5299
court fee throughout, in the light of the law laid down by
this Court in Joseph v. Kerala State Electricity Board and
Another [2012 (4) KHC 753].
In the result, the appeal fails and is accordingly
dismissed, confirming the judgment of the trial court,
subject to the observations made above.
Sd/-
SATHISH NINAN
JUDGE
Sd/-
P. KRISHNA KUMAR
JUDGE
sv
