B N AGARWAL Vs. ATL TEXTILES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE revision petitioner is the defendant in the suit. THE respondent/company filed the suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.74,376/= against the petitioner herein. According to the plaintiff, the petitioner was working as a President in the company and he is liable to pay 75% of the telephone charges provided to his residence at the company's cost. THE defendant in his reply to the lawyer's notice contended that he is not liable for such a claim as the entire amount is to be reimbursed as it was one of the perquisites given to him. THE defendant also filed a written statement. While so, the defendant filed I.A.No.500 of 2005 to reject the Plaint itself as according to him, the suit is barred by limitation.

(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioner he submitted his resignation on 21.9.1994, was accepted with immediate effect on 22.9.1994 and as per the terms and conditions of his appointment letter, he should have been discharged on 21.12.1994 i.e, on the expiry of three months period from his giving a notice or made payment of three months salary. But by letter dated 4.10.1994 the respondent company called upon the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.57,606/= towards personal telephone call charges and also he gave a suitable reply to the said demand. Since he was not relieved he filed a suit claiming a sum of Rs.1,26,560.50 from the respondent/plaintiff on the file of the Additional District Judge No.2, at Jodhpur in Case No.218/1994. It is only as a counter blast the present suit has been filed by the respondent. ACCORDING to the petitioner the period of three years limitation starts from the date of cause of action i.e., on the acceptance of his resignation on 22.9.1997. The respondent/plaintiff resisted the said I.A., stating that the repudiation for the demand of payment for the telephone charges was made by the defendant on 14.10.1994 which letter was received by the plaintiff on 18.10.1994 and thus from the date of repudiation, the suit has been filed within a period of three years and thus it is well within the period of limitation.

(3.) EVEN on merits of the claim, it may be noted that the letter of appointment does not contain any terms regarding the payment of the telephone bills. Further, from 7.11.1992 till 4.10.1994, the respondent-company has always been paying the telephone bills and accounted it as company's expenses and never called upon the petitioner to reimburse the same. It is also pertinent to note that the suit has been filed only as a counter-blast to the claim made by the defendant before the Court at Jothpur.