SITA RAM PAREEK Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal under Section 96 CPC is directed against order dated 22.03.2012 passed by Additional District Judge, Ratangarh, District Churu, whereby, the plaint filed by the appellant -plaintiff has been rejected as barred by limitation under Order VII, Rule 11(d) CPC.

(2.) THE facts in brief may be noticed thus: the plaintiff firm filed a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 1,31,812/ - alongwith interest on 29.01.2011 with the averments that the plaintiff was engaged for transportation of drinking water by Tanker at Tehsil Ratangarh by the defendants, which order was confirmed on 30.05.2006; the rate for such transportation under the agreement was approved at Rs. 3.71 P. kilometer per thousand liter; for the period 05.06.2007 to 17.07.2007 bill for Rs. 1,02,231/ - and for the period 21.07.2007 to 03.08.2007 bill for Rs. 29,581/ - was sent, which were got certified by defendant No.4 from defendant No.2 by sending the same on 23.07.2007; the bills were approved by the Junior Engineer and Assistant Engineer, P.H.E.D., which were forwarded by defendant No.3 to defendant No.2 vide letter No. 1509 -14 on 23.06.2008, however, despite repeated requests the payment was not received and again defendant No.3 wrote a letter to defendant No.2 on 30.03.2009, whereafter also the payment was not received and, therefore, a letter dated 09.07.2010 was written by the plaintiff to defendant No.1 making him aware of the situation, which was forwarded by defendant No.1 to defendant No.3 on 09.07.2010 itself; the defendant No.3 wrote a letter dated 16.07.2010 to defendant No.1 seeking sanction of budget and, in reply to the explanation, a false basis was prepared regarding non -compliance of the Rules by the plaintiff; the payment is not being made and an amount of Rs. 1,31,812/ - alongwith interest w.e.f. 03.08.2008 was outstanding; a notice dated 02.11.2010 under Section 80 CPC was sent, however, no reply has been received; it was claimed that the cause of action arose on 01.01.2011 treating absence of reply to the notice dated 02.11.2010 as denial; ultimately, it was prayed that a decree in a sum of Rs. 1,31,812/ - be granted.

(3.) A reply to the application was filed by the plaintiff and the averments made in the application were denied; it was claimed that the officials of the respondents have made correspondence with the higher officials for seeking sanction for payment and letters dated 30.03.2009 and 16.07.29010 in this regard have been produced alongwith the plaint; ultimately, it was prayed that the application filed by the defendants be dismissed. The trial court by the impugned order, after hearing the parties, came to the conclusion that Article 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963 ('the Act') was applicable, wherein, for the price of work done by the plaintiff for the defendant at his request, where no time has been fixed for payment, the time from which period begins to run is when the work is done and as per the contentions of the defendants, even if, the last of such work done is taken as the date when the cause of action arose i.e. 03.08.2007, the suit having been filed on 29.01.2011 was barred by limitation and accordingly dismissed the same. It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the trial court was not justified in dismissing the suit in a summary manner holding the same to be barred by limitation; the letters produced by the appellant alongwith the plaint clearly made out a case of acknowledgment of liability and, therefore, in terms of Section 18 of the Act, a fresh period of limitation is to be computed from the time when the acknowledgment was signed and, therefore, the trial court was not justified in coming to the conclusion that the suit was barred by limitation. Reliance has been placed on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Food Corporation of India v. Assam State Co -operative Marketing & Consumer Federation Limited & Ors. : 2005 DNJ (SC) 16.