Punjab-Haryana High Court
Shaminderpal Singh vs Gamdoor Singh on 9 December, 2014
Author: Amit Rawal
Bench: Amit Rawal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
248
RSA No.149 of 2014
DATE OF DECISION: December 09, 2014.
Shaminderpal Singh
....Appellant.
VERSUS
Gamdoor Singh
....Respondent.
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL
***
Present: Mr. Malkeet Singh Balianwali, Advocate
for the appellant.
****
AMIT RAWAL, J. (Oral)
This present regular second appeal at the instance of appellant/ plaintiff is directed against the judgment and decree of the Appellate Court dated 16.09.2013 whereby judgment and decree of the trial Court dated 27.02.2012 decreeing the suit for recovery of Rs.25,00,000/- has been set aside on the ground that the suit was time barred.
Admittedly in this case, respondent/ defendant had issued a cheque dated 12.02.2004 and the suit has been filed on 07.05.2007. The stand taken by the defendant/respondent in the written statement that claim of plaintiff was time barred. The trial on the basis of evidence particularly by taking into consideration date of KOMAL 2014.12.16 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA No.149 of 2014 -2- dishonouring the cheque i.e. 07.05.2004 decreed the suit by treating the same to have been filed within a period of three years.
In appeal, the lower Appellate Court while applying provisions of Article 20 of the Act, allowed the appeal and reversed the judgment and decree of the trial Court by holding that suit in 07.05.2007 was time barred as Limitation would start from the date of issuance of cheque i.e. 12.02.2004.
For the sake of brevity Article 20 of the Limitation Act reproduced herein below:-
Article Description of suit Period of limitation Time from which period begins to run 20 Like suit when the Three years When the cheque lender has given a is paid cheque for the money Mr. Malkeet Singh Balianwali, Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant/plaintiff has raised two fold arguments. One that the lower Appellate Court has committed perversity in misreading the provision of law i.e. Article 40 of the Limitation Act and secondly in not noticing the definition of "Bill of exchange" as enshrined in Section 6 of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
I have gone through provision of Article 40 of Limitation Act, 1963 and as well as of Section 6 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. For adjudication of the present regular second appeal Article 40 of Limitation Act and Section 6 of the Negotiable Instrument Act are reproduced hereinbelow:-
KOMAL2014.12.16 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA No.149 of 2014 -3-
Article Description of suit Period of limitation Time from which period begins to run 40 By the payee against Three years The date of the the drawer of a bill refusal to accept.
of exchange, which has been dishonoured by non-
acceptance.
Section 6: " A "cheque" is a bill of exchange drawn on a specified banker and not expressed to be payable otherwise than on demand and it includes the electronic image of a truncated cheque and a cheque in the electronic form. "
On going through the language of Article 40, it is manifest that it deals with the bills of exchange and the limitation to recover the amount is three years from the date of refund to accept. Similarly, Section 6 of the Negotiable Instruments Act also deals with the definition of cheque, which according to the counsel for the appellant/ plaintiff, is an Bill of exchange. According to learned counsel for the appellant/ plaintiff, Article 40 would be attracted and not Article 20, as it erroneously has been taken into consideration by the lower Appellate Court and therefore, the suit of the appellant/plaintiff was within a period of limitation.
I am unable to accept the argument raised on behalf of the learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff as the language used in Article 20 is unambiguous. It is settled law that in case the language of the statute is not clear then Court can resort to take aid of other KOMAL 2014.12.16 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA No.149 of 2014 -4- provisions of statute, in order to determine the controversy in question. Since the legislature while framing Article 20, has prescribed period of limitation three years, when the cheque is paid to file suit for recovery and limitation will not begin from the date when the cheque is dishonoured.
In view of what has been observed above, I am in agreement with the finding rendered by lower Appellate Court, which has correctly applied the provisions of Article 20 of the Limitation Act and reversed the judgment and decree of the trial Court and dismissed the suit of the plaintiff-appellant. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed as, no substantial questions of law arise for determination of this Court.
No other point has been argued.
Dismissed.
(AMIT RAWAL) JUDGE December 09, 2014.
komal KOMAL 2014.12.16 16:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document