Punjab-Haryana High Court
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited vs Satpal Gupta on 10 January, 2012
Author: L. N. Mittal
Bench: L. N. Mittal
R. S. A. No. 1374 of 2010 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Case No. : R. S. A. No. 1374 of 2010
Date of Decision : January 10, 2012
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited .... Appellant
Vs.
Satpal Gupta .... Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL
* * *
Present : Mr. Mukesh Kumar Bhatnagar, Advocate
for Mr. V. K. Sharma, Advocate
for the appellant.
Mr. P. S. Rana, Advocate
for the respondent.
* * *
L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) :
Plaintiff Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (in short - BSNL) having lost in both the courts below, has filed the instant second appeal.
Plaintiff-appellant filed suit against defendant-respondent Satpal Gupta for recovery of Rs.1,24,078/- being the outstanding amount of telephone bills due from the defendant-respondent.
The defendant-respondent disputed his liability and pleaded that no amount was due from him to the plaintiff. Various objections R. S. A. No. 1374 of 2010 2 including objection of bar of limitation was also raised.
Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Karnal, vide judgment and decree dated 22.01.2009, held the suit amount to be due from the defendant to the plaintiff, but dismissed the suit as time barred. First appeal preferred by the plaintiff has also been dismissed by learned District Judge, Karnal, vide judgment and decree dated 21.10.2009. Feeling aggrieved, plaintiff has filed the instant second appeal.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file.
In so far as the question of suit amount being due from the defendant to the plaintiff is concerned, the same has been duly proved by the plaintiff by leading cogent evidence. There is also finding of courts below to this effect in favour of plaintiff-appellant. Therefore, the only question to be determined by this Court is whether the suit is barred by limitation or not.
Plaintiff-appellant BSNL (a company) came into existence w.e.f. 01.10.2000 as successor-in-interest of Union of India. Limitation period for filing of suit by Union of India is 30 years. Therefore, suit filed on 30.09.2003 would have been within limitation, if filed by Union of India. However, admittedly, limitation period for filing a suit by BSNL is three years. The suit was filed by BSNL within limitation period of three years from its coming into existence. Consequently, the suit is within limitation. R. S. A. No. 1374 of 2010 3 In this view, I am supported by three unreported judgments of this Court namely M/s B. S. Sidhu and Company vs. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and another passed in R. S. A. No. 5042 of 2009 - decided on 25.03.2010, Rai Singh vs. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited passed in R. S. A. No. 3817 of 2007 - decided on 23.09.2008 and Banarsi Dass Sharma vs. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. passed in R. S. A. No. 2628 of 2009 - decided on 23.04.2010. Counsel for defendant-respondent, however, relied on judgment of this Court in the case of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. vs. Pawan Kumar Gupta reported as 2007 (4) Civil Court Cases 366. However, this judgment has also been considered in the case of M/s B. S. Sidhu and Company (supra) and also in the case of Banarsi Dass Sharma (supra). Consequently, it is held that suit filed by the plaintiff-appellant is within limitation.
Substantial question of law arises for adjudication in this second appeal as to whether finding of the courts below, that suit is barred by limitation, is perverse and illegal, and therefore, unsustainable? The said question is answered in favour of plaintiff-appellant holding the suit to be within limitation.
Accordingly, the instant second appeal is allowed. Judgments and decrees of both the courts below are set aside and the suit filed by the plaintiff-appellant is decreed with costs throughout for recovery of Rs.1,24,078/- along with interest thereon @ 9% per annum w.e.f. the date of R. S. A. No. 1374 of 2010 4 filing of suit till date of decree of the trial court and @ 6% per annum from the date of decree of trial court till recovery.
January 10, 2012 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE