LIC OF INDIA Vs. PREM CHAND SHUKLA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this first appeal under Sec. 96 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (in brevity "Code"), the appellant has challenged the legality and propriety of the judgment and decree dated 19-10-2001 passed by the Additional District Judge, Manendragarh Distt. Koriya in Civil Suit No. 4B/1998 whereby and where under learned Court below has dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff/appellant for recovery of remaining loan amount and interest Rs. 1,92,399.00 and held that as the suit filed by the appellant/plaintiff is barred by limitation, the plaintiff/appellant is not entitled for any relief.

(2.) As per claim of the plaintiff/appellant, the respondent/defendant was working as Development Officer under the services of the plaintiff. On his request on 17-11-1990, loan was granted to the respondent for Rs.2,17,300.00. The defendant purchased a four wheeler bearing Registration No. MP 23 B 3140. The vehicle was hypothecated. The appellant gave loan for purchase of the said vehicle. Both the parties entered into an agreement on 17-11-1990. As per said agreement, the loan amount was to be deducted from the salary of the respondent; First instalment was of Rs. 2,265.00, last being Rs.2,125.00 starting from the month of Jan., 1991. On 30-3-1994, services of respondent were terminated. The respondent after his termination not paid any instalment since April, 1994 and also not returned the said four wheeler to the plaintiff. Then the plaintiff filed a civil suit on 14-5-1998. As per pleadings, the amount due was Rs. 1,28,695.00 till date along with interest at the rate of 12% i.e. Rs. 63,704.00. The appellant by filing said civil suit prayed that the defendant be directed to return Rs. 1,92,399.00 and also the interest due after filing of the suit. It is submitted that cause of action arose on 18-12-1997. The defendant filed written statement, admitted the loan to purchase four wheeler, which was to be deducted on instalment as agreed from his salary but as the services of the respondent were illegally terminated, hence the agreement to repay the loan came to an end. The defendant prayed that the loan amount may be adjusted from whatever gratuity, PF and interim bonus deposited with the plaintiff, The plaintiff had not agreed on it. It is also pleaded that the suit is barred by limitation. Hence the suit may be dismissed as not maintainable.

(3.) Learned trial Court framed issues.