Satpal vs The Medical Superintendent

Jaswant Singh, J.—Plaintiff is in second appeal, against the judgment of reversal, whereby the Learned District Judge, Rohtak allowed the appeal filed by the defendants/respondents vide judgment and decree dated 10.05.1990 and consequently, reversed the findings of the learned Senior Sub Judge, Rohtak whereby suit for mandatory and permanent injunction was decreed by him vide its judgment dated 25.08.1989. In brief, facts of the case are that on 19.5.1988 plaintiff/appellant Sat Pal filed a suit for mandatory and permanent injunction against the defendants/respondents with the allegations that one Smt. Kulwant Malhi was working as Nurse and was selected to get training for tutor in the year 1973 and for that purpose she had executed a bond for Rs. 21,000/- and had undertaken to serve the State of Haryana for a period of 3 to 5 years and in case of default, she was to pay Rs. 21,000/- to the State. It was further alleged that defendant no. 3/State of Haryana had issued a letter dated 8.6.87 to the Accounts Officer by alleging therein that plaintiff was one of the sureties to that bond and that said Smt. Kulwant Malhi was neither joining the services nor replying to the various letters addressed to her and as such a sum of Rs. 100/- per month be deducted from the salary of plaintiff Sat Pal and Rs. 250/- from salary of Sujan Singh. It is this letter which has been challenged by the plaintiff as being illegal and void without jurisdiction on the grounds that have been enumerated in para 3 of the plaint, especially the ground that plaintiff Sat Pal was only a witness to the said bond and even if he was proved to have signed the bond in any other capacity, even then the plaintiff was not liable to make any payment towards the said bond. Thus the present suit was filed.

Upon notice, all the material averments were denied by defendants and it was stated that plaintiff had stood surety for Smt. Kulwant Malhi and as such he was equally liable for the amount of bond executed by Smt. Kulwant Malhi and defendants were competent to recover the said amount from the plaintiff. The impugned letter dated 8.6.87 was pleaded to be perfectly valid and under due authority. Remaining averments were denied and prayer was made for dismissal of the suit.

From the pleadings of the parties issues were framed. Both sides led evidence in support of their respective claims After appreciating their evidence, learned trial Court decreed the suit whereas the findings thereof were reversed by the learned lower Appellate Court. Hence the present second appeal.

I have heard learned Counsel for the plaintiff/appellant and have also gone through the case file carefully with his able assistance.

Learned Counsel for the plaintiff/appellant has argued that the findings returned by the learned lower Appellate Court suffer from illegality and perversity and, therefore, the said judgment and decree is liable to be set aside because on one hand learned lower Appellate Court has held in para 10 of its judgment that even if the suit to recover the amount in the impugned conditional agreement bond from the appellant/plaintiff had become time barred, still State of Haryana would be fully competent to recover the said amount from the plaintiff by deducting the amount from his salary. Thus, it has been argued that the present appeal is liable to be allowed and the impugned judgment and decree dated 10.05.1990 is liable to be set aside.

After hearing learned Counsel for the appellant and perusing the paper book with his able assistance, this Court is of the considered view that the present petition is devoid of any merit and the same deserves to be dismissed.

A perusal of the judgment and decree passed by the learned lower Appellate Court would show that in para 9 of its judgment while dealing with the point of limitation, the learned lower Appellate Court had observed as follows:-

A perusal of the Article 112 of the Indian Limitation Act, as referred to above, would make it clear that any suit by or on behalf of the State Govt. could be filed within a period of 30 years from the date when the period of limitation would being to run under the limitation Act against a similar suit by a private person. Under these circumstances, it would be clear that even though the limitation was three years under Article 30 of the Limitation Act, in respect of a private person, the said limitation was 30 years in case the suit was to be filed by the State Govt. That being so, it could not be said that the State Govt. could have filed the suit within a period of three years and since the recovery was being effected after a period of 14 years, the plaintiff was not liable to pay the said amount, nor it could be said that the order dated 8.6.87 issued by the defendants/appellants for recovering Rs. 100/- per month from the plaintiff/respondent was bad in law on that account. In my opinion, the defendants/appellants including the State of Haryana were not required to file a civil suit against the plaintiff-respondent for the recovery of the said amount when the plaintiff-respondent was even otherwise liable to pay the said amount to the defendant/appellants under the terms of the said bond executed by Smt. Kulwant Malhi, as the plaintiff had stood surety for the same and the plaintiff was under the employment of the State Government.

It is clear from above, that in view of Article 112 of Limitation Act, State Government can file any suit within a period of 30 years and thus, the argument that suit is barred by limitation is misconceived. Learned Lower Appellate Court has rightly held that limitation bars the remedy but does not extinguish the right. Even otherwise, the said proposition becomes academic in view of the fact that in present case, Government of Haryana is recovering the amount by deducting it from his salary and has not filed suit for recovery. As is evident from Ex. D-1 i.e. the bond executed by Smt. Kulwant Malhi that "nor shall it be necessary for the Government to sue the said obligor before seeing the sureties or any of them for the amount due hereunder", this Court has no hesitation in holding that State Government was well within its right to recover the amount from the plaintiff. In view of the above, finding no question of law much less substantial question of law arising for determination in the present second appeal, the same is hereby dismissed.