Punjab-Haryana High Court
S.D. Sharma vs Maruti Udyog Limited Palam Gurgaon on 8 July, 2013
Author: Rakesh Kumar Garg
Bench: Rakesh Kumar Garg
RSA No.387 of 2011 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
RSA No.387 of 2011 (O&M)
Date of decision: 08.07.2013
S.D. Sharma ......Appellant(s)
Versus
Maruti Udyog Limited Palam Gurgaon
Road Gurgaon, Haryana ......Respondent(s)
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG
* * *
Present: Mr. Ashish Gupta , Advocate for the appellant.
Mr. Harsh Aggarwal, Advocate for the respondent.
Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. (Oral)
This is defendant's second appeal challenging the judgments and decrees of the Courts below whereby suit for recovery of Rs.1,51,529/- filed by the plaintiff-respondent was decreed against him.
It is the case of the plaintiff-respondent that services of the appellant were terminated on 11.11.1999, however, when the defendant- appellant was in service of the plaintiff-respondent, house building loan to the tune of Rs.92,000/- was sanctioned in his favour vide office order dated 5.7.1990 and he agreed to repay the same in installments along with interest. The appellant as a security for repayment of loan gave equitable mortgage of residential plot situated in Khasra No.1071, Om Nagar, Gurgaon, by depositing original sale deed dated 6.10.1989. According to the plaintiff-respondent, after adjusting the payments made, a sum of Rs.1,29,608/- + 3,900/- was outstanding towards house building loan and vehicle loan respectively, along with future interest at the rate of 17% w.e.f 12.11.1999 upto the date of filing of the suit.
Saini Pushpinder 2013.07.19 12:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh RSA No.387 of 2011 (O&M) 2
The suit was contested by the defendant-appellant raising various preliminary objections with regard to maintainability, locus standi, estoppel, jurisdiction etc. On merits, it was stated that no loan was granted to the appellant by the respondent. It was further denied that the appellant ever mortgaged the residential plot and that the plaintiff-respondent was entitled for recovery of the alleged amount and dismissal of the suit was prayed for.
On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of Rs.1,51,529/- from the defendants as prayed for? OPP
2. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in the present form as alleged? OPD
3. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed for mis joinder and non joinder of necessary parties as alleged? OPD
4. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit as alleged? OPD
5. Whether the plaintiff is estopped from filing the present suit by his own act and conduct as alleged?
6. Whether the civil court has no jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit as alleged? OPD
7.Whether the suit of the plaintiff is pre mature as alleged? OPD
8. Relief."
Further following additional issues were framed on 25.7.2008:
"1(a) Whether the defendant No.1 mortgaged his property as mentioned under para no.5 as equitable mortgaged with the plaintiff company? OPP Saini Pushpinder 2013.07.19 12:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh RSA No.387 of 2011 (O&M) 3 1(B) If above issue is proved, whether the mortgaged property is liable to be sold for the recovery of loan amount?OPP"
On consideration of the evidence on record, suit of the plaintiff- respondent was decreed and preliminary decree for recovery of Rs.1,51,529/- was passed in favour of the respondent. The appellant was directed to make the payment within three months from the date of decree and in case of failure on the part of the appellant, recovery could be effected by the plaintiff-respondent by selling the mortgaged property of the appellant.
Appeal filed against the aforesaid judgment and decree was dismissed.
Still not satisfied, the instant appeal has been filed on behalf of the appellant.
Challenging the judgments and decrees of the Courts below, learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that the Courts below have failed to appreciate the fact that the suit of the plaintiff- respondent was barred by limitation as the last deduction towards installments in loan accounts of appellant was made from his salary in the month of August, 1996 and thereafter, no deduction was made, meaning thereby cause of action to file the present suit accrued to the plaintiff- respondent in the month of August, 1996 and thus, the present suit could be filed within the period of three years i.e. upto July 1999 whereas the suit was filed on 20.2.2001, thus, the Courts below have erred at law while entertaining the suit of the plaintiff-respondent which was barred by limitation.
In the grounds of appeal, the appellant has framed the Saini Pushpinder 2013.07.19 12:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh RSA No.387 of 2011 (O&M) 4 following substantial questions of law said to be arisen in the instant appeal:
"1. Whether the judgments of the courts below are illegal, void without jurisdiction?
2. Whether the impugned judgments and decrees are perverse against the well settled proposition of law which was held by this Hon'ble Court as well as by Hon'ble Apex Court in catena of judgments?
3. Whether the findings of the court below are suffering from in apparent perversity as the face of it being contrary of law and facts on record?
4. Whether the impugned judgment and decree suffer an apparent, illegality and perversity because of ignoring the material piece of evidence have been direct impact on decision of the case? However on the basis of the arguments, as noticed above, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the following substantial questions of law arises in this appeal for consideration of this Court:
"Whether the suit of the plaintiff-respondent was barred by limitation."
I have perused the impugned judgment and decrees of the Courts below.
It may be noticed that the argument raised on behalf of the appellant is liable to be rejected outrightly.
Admittedly, the appellant has not taken any objection with regard to the limitation of the suit in the written statement. Neither any such argument was raised before the trial Court. Not only this, though before the Lower Appellate Court, the appellant raised the issue, however the same was dealt with observing as under:
"So far point of limitation is concerned, it cannot Saini Pushpinder 2013.07.19 12:16 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court Chandigarh RSA No.387 of 2011 (O&M) 5 be said that the suit is barred by limitation. As per terms of agreement between the parties if the services of the plaintiff were terminated then the entire outstanding amount was payable in lumpsum. In this case, the services of the plaintiff were terminated vide order dated 11.11.1999, therefore, on said date the entire amount also accrued to the plaintiff on that date i.e. 11.11.1999. If said date is taken into consideration as the starting point of limitation the suit is within limitation."
Counsel for the appellant could not dispute the terms of the agreement as noticed by the Lower Appellate Court. The factum of termination of his service on 11.11.1999 is also admitted.
In view thereof, the argument raised before this Court is wholly erroneous.
No other point has been raised by the appellant in this appeal. No substantial question of law, as raised, arises in this appeal. Dismissed.
July 08, 2013 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG)
ps JUDGE
Saini Pushpinder
2013.07.19 12:16
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document
High Court Chandigarh