Trial Court cannot dismiss a suit on limitation without framing a specific issue and allowing evidence.

The appellant (plaintiff), a local self-government body, awarded a tender to the defendant for sewage construction via an agreement dated 22.06.1995

Possession was handed over on 04.10.1995, but the defendant failed to commence work despite a 180-day completion clause

The plaintiff issued a notice on 21.11.1996 and subsequently passed Resolution No. 408 on 31.01.1997, terminating the contract and forfeiting the security deposit

The plaintiff sued for recovery of ₹16,80,069, representing the additional costs incurred by hiring another contractor

The Trial Court (5th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Mehsana) found in favor of the plaintiff on most merits but dismissed the suit solely as barred by limitation

1. Whether the Trial Court erred in dismissing the suit on the grounds of limitation without framing a specific issue regarding limitation during the trial?

2. Whether the period of limitation under Article 55 of the Limitation Act, 1963, begins from the date of the resolution (31.01.1997) or the date of communication of said resolution (22.02.1997)?

Article 55 of the Limitation Act, 1963, which provides a three-year period for compensation for breach of contract, beginning from the date the contract is broken

Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, regarding the appellate jurisdiction of the High Court

A judicial determination on a mixed question of law and fact, such as limitation, generally requires a formal issue to be framed to allow parties to lead evidence under the Code of Civil Procedure

The High Court observed that while the Trial Court framed twelve issues, none pertained to the question of limitation

Consequently, the parties did not have the opportunity to adduce specific evidence to establish or rebut the limitation plea

The High Court determined that deciding the suit on limitation without a framed issue was a procedural error that necessitated a remand, as it prevented a thorough factual inquiry into when the "breach" occurred or when the cause of action was triggered

The Trial Court was directed to frame an additional issue regarding limitation and allow both parties to lead evidence on this specific point

The suit was restored to the file with a direction for disposal within six months