UNION OF INDIA Vs. GANPAT RAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Respondent entered into an agreement with Railway on 15-12-50 for doing certain work. It was extended upto 3-3-52. In March, 1952, respondent gave bill for Rs. 4,000.00 & asked refund of Rs. 3,000.00 (security). To repeated reminders, he was told that matter was under consideration. On 21-1-64, his claim was repudiated. After notice u/s 80, Civil Procedure Code, he filed suit for Rs. 7,000.00. Para 2 onwards judgement is :-

(2.) The suit was resisted on the merits as also on the ground that it was barred by time. By its judgment and decree, the trial Court returned findings on all the issues on merits in favour of the respondent but the plea with regard to limitation raised by the appellants prevailed with the learned trial Court with the result that the respondent's suit was dismissed. In the course of its judgment, the trial Court held that the limitation for the suit would be regulated by Article 120 of the Limitation Act of 1963 and came to the conclusion that in terms of clause (23) of the agreement, time was fixed within which claim had to be submitted by the respondent and the question of disallowance was to be decided by the appellant and that the right to sue in terms of Article 120 of the Limitation Act accrued on the expiry of the said period, and that in that view of the matter, the suit was barred by time. The contention raised before the trial Court on behalf of the respondent that the right to sue accrued on various dates on which the appellant admitted the payment and kept the matter pending from time to time and eventually on January 21, 1964 when the appellants finally repudiated the claim wai dispelled.

(3.) On appeal, the decision of the trial Court on the question of limitation, the only question raised by the respondent, was reversed and the learned First Appellate Court held that the entire approach of the trial Court with regard to the question of limitation was erroneous and held, basing its decision on Mi. Boh v. Mi. Koklan. AIR 1930 P.C. 270, Annamalai Chettiar Vs. K.C. T. Muthukaruppen AIR 1931 P C. 9 and Gobindo Narayan Singh v. Sham Lal Singh AIR 1931 P.C. 89, that there could be no right to sue until there was an accrual of the right asserted in the suit and its infringement or at least a clear and unequivocal threat to infringe the right which forms subject matter of the suit and that the repudiation which could constitute an accrual of the right to sue took place only by the letter of January 21, 1964, Ex. P 25 and the suit being governed by Article 120 of the Limitation Act and having been filed within six years of the said date of the letter was within time. In the result, the judgment and decree of the trial Court were set aside and the suit of the respondent was decreed with Costs.