Tej Singh Vs. the State of Rajasthan

limitation act, 1908 - article 56--a piece of work done--no time for payment fixed--held, article 56 applied.;in the present case the suit is for the work done by the plaintiff for the defendant at his request and no time for payment was fixed. therefore article 60 is in terms applicable. - section 2(k), 2(1), 7 & 40 & juvenile justice (care and protection of children) rules, 2007, rule 12 & 98 & juvenile justice act, 1986, section 2(h): [altamas kabir & cyriac joseph, jj] determination as to juvenile - appellant was found to have completed the age of 16 years and 13 days on the date of alleged occurrence - appellant was arrested on 30.11.1998 when the 1986 act was in force and under clause (h) of section 2 a juvenile was described to mean a child who had not attained the age of sixteen years or a girl who had not attained the age of eighteen years - it is with the enactment of the juvenile justice act, 2000, that in section 2(k) a juvenile or child was defined to mean a child who had not completed eighteen years of a ge which was given prospective prospect - appellant was about sixteen years of age on the date of commission of the alleged offence and had not completed eighteen years of age when the juvenile justice act, 2000, came into force - juvenile act, of 2000 has been given retrospective effect by rule 12 of juvenile justice rule, 2007 - as such, accused has to be treated as juvenile under the said act. .....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.