Banarsi Dass Sharama vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd on 23 April, 2010

[Cites 6, Cited by 6]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Banarsi Dass Sharama vs Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd on 23 April, 2010

Bench: L. N. Mittal

                          R. S. A. No. 2628 of2009 (O&M)                    1




IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.


                          Case No. : R. S. A. No. 2628 of2009 (O&M)
                          Date of Decision : April 23, 2010



             Banarsi Dass Sharama                   ....    Appellant
                                  Vs.
             Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd.              ....    Respondent


CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL

                          *   *   *

Present :    Mr. V. B. Aggarwal, Advocate
             for the appellant.

             Mr. Mukesh Kumar Bhatnagar, Advocate
             for Mr. V. K. Sharma, Advocate
             for the respondent.

                          *   *   *

L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) :

This is second appeal by defendant Banarsi Dass Sharma, who has been unsuccessful in both the courts below.

Respondent Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (in short - BSNL) filed suit for recovery of Rs.32,283/- against the appellant being outstanding amount of telephone bills, which had been installed at the premises of the defendant by plaintiff's predecessor i.e. Union of India.

The defendant, while admitting that the telephone connection had been provided to him, denied that any amount is outstanding against him. Suit was also alleged to be barred by limitation. Various other pleas were also raised.

R. S. A. No. 2628 of2009 (O&M) 2

Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kurukshetra, vide judgment and decree dated 27.05.2008, decreed the plaintiff's suit for recovery of Rs.32,283/- along with interest @ 8% per annum, from the date of filing of suit till recovery. First appeal preferred by the defendant stands dismissed by learned District Judge, Kurukshetra, vide judgment and decree dated 14.11.2008. Feeling aggrieved, the defendant has preferred the instant second appeal.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file.

Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the amount is said to be due for the bills from April 1993 to October 1994, but the suit was filed on 30.09.2003 and therefore, the suit is barred by limitation because plaintiff-respondent, being a company, would not be covered by Article 112 of the Schedule to Limitation Act, prescribing period of limitation of 30 years for a suit by and on behalf of Central Government or State Government. Reliance in support of this contention has been placed on a judgment of this Court in the case of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. vs. Pawan Kumar Gupta reported as 2007 (4) R. C. R. (Civil) 10. There is no dispute with the legal proposition that limitation period for filing suit by the respondent-company would be three years. However, plaintiff-company was incorporated w.e.f. 01.10.2000. Till then, the amont was due from the defendant to Union of India and limitation period for filing of suit by Union of India was 30 years and the said period would have expired in April 2023. Consequently, the limitation period of three years for filing of suit by plaintiff-company would commence on 01.10.2000, when the plaintiff-company was incorporated, as the limitation period stood curtailed from 30 years to three years on the said date. In this view, I am supported by my unreported judgment dated 23.09.2008 in R. S. A. No. 3817 of 2007 titled Rai Singh vs. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and R. S. A. No. 2628 of2009 (O&M) 3 also my judgment dated 25.03.2010 in R. S. A. No. 5042 of 2009 titled M/s B. S. Sidhu & Company vs. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and another, wherein various other precedents were also considered. In view of these judgments, the aforesaid contention raised on behalf of counsel for the appellant has to be rejected.

Learned counsel for the appellant also contended that rate of interest cannot exceed 6% as it was not commercial transaction from the point of view of the defendant-appellant. This contention has to be accepted regarding future interest from the date of decree of the trial court, in view of provision of Section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

In view of the aforesaid, the instant appeal is partly allowed by modifying the judgment and decrees of the courts below, to the extent that future interest on the suit amount from the date of decree of the trial court till recovery shall be @ 6% per annum, whereas pendente lite interest on the suit amount from the date of filing the suit till date of decree of the trial court shall remain as 8% per annum, as awarded by the courts below.

April 23, 2010                                     ( L. N. MITTAL )
monika                                                   JUDGE

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Punjab-Haryana High Court