Union of India vs M.C.Pandey

Heard Sri Alok Singh, Sr. Advocate assisted by Smt. Anjali Bhargava Advocate for the appellant and Sri L S. Mehra, Advocate for the respondent.

Present appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 31102007 passed by the District Judge, Almora in Civil appeal No. 7 of 2006 Union of India v. M. C. Pandey.

Briefly stated the plaintiff M. C. Pandey has filed a suit against the Union of India for the recovery of Rs. 66,985.80/. According to the plaintiff he was a Contractor in M.E.S. Department at Ranikhet, District Almora. The plaintiff used to carry out the orders of the defendant Garrison Engineer Ranikhet by issuing Hand Notes, gate passes, loan issue vouchers for carrying out the jobs assigned by the said defendant. The plaintiff submitted bills amounting to Rs. 66,985.80 to the defendant for payment after completing the work assigned to him but the defendant did not pay the bill amount despite repeated requests.

The defendants filed joint written statement and denied the claim of the plaintiff stating therein that the claim sought by the plaintiff is time barred as the matter relates to the year 1987 to 1988. The bills submitted by the plaintiff are false and illegal.

On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court has framed as many as four issues.

(1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover Rs. 66,985.80 along with interest ? If so, its effect.?

(2) Whether the plaintiff was registered contractor in the defendant department ? If not, its effect ?

(3) Whether the suit of the plaintiff is barred by limitation? If so, its effect ?

(4) To what relief, if any, is the plaintiff entitled?

The plaintiff has examined himself as P.W. 1 and he has also filed 51 papers vide list 6C which are the original workorder, gate pass and bills. The defendants have examined Sri N. C. S. Joshi as D.W 1 and have also filed 19 papers vide list 91C which are the photo copies of various letters. They have also filed three papers vide list 161C which are letters dated 2782003, work order dated 1632004 and letter dated 3032004.

The trial Court on the basis of the evidence on record has decreed the suit of the plaintiff for the recovery of Rs. 66,985.80 along with, interest at the rate of 6% per annum.

Feeling aggrieved the defendants have preferred an appeal before the District Judge, Almora who has dismissed the same vide impugned judgment and decree dated 31st October 2007, against which the defendantappellants have preferred the present second appeal.

Counsel for the appellant has submitted that all the bills of the respondent are of the year 198889 but the suit was filed in the year 1999. The limitation for filing of the suit for the recovery of money is three years and as such the suit is barred by limitation.

On the other hand counsel for the respondent has argued that the suit is not barred by time as the defendants have acknowledged the payment of the bills so many times by writing the letters.

Section 18 of the Indian Limitation Act, reads as under:

Effect of acknowledgement in writing.

(1) Where, before the expiration of the prescribed period for a suit or application in respect of any property or right, all acknowledgement of liability in respect of such property or right has been made in writing signed by the party against whom such property or right is claimed, or by any person through whom he drives his title or liability, a fresh period of limitation shall be computed from the time when the acknowledgement was so signed.

(2) Where the writing containing the acknowledgement is initiated, oral evidence may be given of the time when it was signed; but subject to the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), oral evidence of its contents shall not be receive.

Explanation. For the purposes of this section,

(a) An acknowledgement may be sufficient though it omits to specify the exact nature of the property or right, or avers that the time for payment, delivery, performance or enjoyment has not yet come or is accompanied by a refusal to pay, deliver, perform or permit to enjoy, or is coupled with a claim to setoff, or is addressed to a person other than a person entitled to the property or right;

(b) The word "signed" means signed either personally or by an agent duly authorised in this behalf, and

(c) All applications for the execution of a decree or order shall not be deemed to be an application in respect of any property or right.

The bills were submitted in the year 198889 as mentioned in paragraph 4 of the plaint as under:

R/10 dated 2531988 Rs. 2460.00 Repair of D.G. Set''s Engine R/11 dated 15189 Rs. 26625.80 Repair of 78 HP Motor

The acknowledgement was made within three years from submission of bills thereafter second and third acknowledgement was also made for less than three years period. The suit was filed on 20th May, 1991 and thus the suit has been filed well within limitation.

In the case of Sampuran Singh and others v. Smt. Niranjan Kaur and others, AIR 1999 SC 1047, the Apex Court has held as under:

In his endeavour, learned counsel for the appellants referred to Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963 to hold that the acknowledgment by the original mortgagees to the respondents, through the said registered document dated 1111960, the period of limitation is revived which would only start from the date of acknowledgment hence the suit filed in the year 1980 would be within limitation. The said submission is without any force. Section 18 subsection (1) itself starts with the words:

"18. (1) Where, before the expiration of the prescribed period for a suit or application in respect of any property or right, an acknowledgment of liability in respect of such property or right has been made...."

In the present case acknowledgement has been made well before the expiration of the prescribed period for a suit under section 18 (1) of the Limitation Act, and thus the suit has been filed within the period of limitation.

The trial Court has already held that the plaintiff is entitled to recover Rs. 66,985.80 along with pendent lite and future interest at the rate of 6% per annum. The first appellate Court has dismissed the appeal of the appellant. Thus there are concurrent findings of both the courts below.

Thus in view of the discussion made above, no substantial question of law arises in the appeal. The appeal is, therefore, summarily dismissed with costs.