ZILA PARISHAD Vs. HARI SHANKER LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THERE is no merit what -so -ever in this second appeal. The Appellant Zila Parishad instituted the suit giving rise to this second appeal for recovery of the sum of Rs. 1258/ - on the allegation that the Respondent had embezzled the amount. The trial court decreed the suit but the lower appellate court has reversed the decree on the ground that the claim was barred by limitation. The suit was instituted on 24th May, 1963. The amount is said to have been embezzled in the year 1945. The Appellant Zila Parishad relied on the fact that the final decision holding the Respondent guilty of having embezzled the amount was arrived at by this Court on 20th February, 1962 in the criminal prosecution that was launched against the Respondent. According to the learned Counsel Section 24 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1908, or the equivalent provision of Section 23 of the Limitation Act, 1963 applied, and the suit was filed within time. According to the trial court the Article of the Limitation Act which applied was Article 36 of the Ist Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1908 which prescribed a limitation of 2 years in suits for compensation for any malfeasance etc. from the date when malfeasance etc. takes place. Section 24 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1908 was in the following terms:

(2.) SECTION 23 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is in identical terms but the illustration is not there. In the present case, the cause of action accrued when the amount was embezzled. The Zila Parishad did not have to wait for the judgment of this Court in the criminal proceedings, holding that the amount had in fact been embezzled, to recover the embezzled amount by the process of Court. It had to be proved as a fact in the suit giving rise to this appeal that the amount had been embezzled and that the Defendant -Respondent was liable to make it good, or to compensate the Zila Parishad for the loss. The finding had to be arrived at in the suit independently of the finding in the criminal proceedings, and on evidence led in the suit and not in the criminal proceedings.

(3.) THE appeal fails and is dismissed but in the circumstances I make no order as to costs.