AGNES DMELLO Vs. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR CANARA BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Advocate for the complainant has filed an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure of 1908 for inclusion of Para 17 in the complaint to the effect that the cause of action arose on 31.3.1989 when the Respondent Bank wrote a letter to the Complainant's Power of Attorney Holder intimating that the investigation report did not disclose any violation of rules as contended, and further on 29.4.1989, when the police informed her P. A. Holder that the crime in undetectable, and therefore, the complaint is in time. Even if that application is allowed, it will not be of any use to the complainant to show that the complaint is in time, because the limitation starts from the date on which the cause of action to sue accrued to the complainant and not from the day on which she came to know about the result of investigation of Bank officials or the police. It is clearly stated in the complaint that on 13.8.1987, her P. A. Holder, received a letter from the Bank calling upon her to go over to the Bank to discuss with regard to locker and that the complainant went to the Bank on 19.8.1987 and the Manager of the Respondent bank told her that the locker of the complainant had been opened unauthorisedly by somebody and all the articles of the complainant were missing. The complainant has also admitted in para 3 of the affidavit filed by her along with the application under Order 6 Rule 17 of the CPC, that on 20.8.1987, her Sister-in-law informed her over telephone that the Canara Bank Manager had informed her that all the jewelleries kept in locker were missing. Thus, it is clear that the complainant came to know that the locker was opened and all articles kept by her were missing on 19.8.1987. It is on that day the cause of action arose to sue the respondent bank for return of her articles. According to Article 113 of Limitation Act, such suit shall be made within 3 years from the date when cause of action arose i. e. , from 19.8.1987. The complaint, in this case, has been filed by complainant on 30.3.1991 and, therefore it is clearly barred by limitation.

(2.) The Learned Counsel for the complainant urged that the complainant was waiting for the result of the investigation by the Bank officials and the police and thereafter complaint has been filed and therefore, the complaint is in time. We do not agree with the said submission of the Learned Counsel. That would not save the limitation and we cannot condone the delay on that score as this is a complaint on the original side and as there is no provision for the condonation of delay.

(3.) As the complaint is barred by limitation, it is unnecessary to go into the other contentions of the parties.