Regular Second Appeal No. 3721 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 3721 of 2010 Date of decision : December 01, 2011 State of Haryana and others ....Appellants versus Vinod Kumar ....Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal Present : Mr. Amit Kumar, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana for the appellants Mr. Rajbir Sehrawat, Advocate, for the respondent L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral) This is second appeal by defendants – State of Haryana and its officers who were successful in the trial court but have been unsuccessful in the lower appellate court. Suit was filed by respondent-plaintiff Vinod Kumar against defendants/appellants. Plaintiff's services were regularised with effect from 1.2.1996 vide order dated 19.4.2002 and thereupon consequent arrears were paid to the plaintiff in September, 2002. In the suit, the plaintiff claimed Regular Second Appeal No. 3721 of 2010 -2- interest on the amount of arrears with effect from 1.2.1996 onwards. The defendants resisted the suit and pleaded that the suit is hopelessly barred by limitation. Some other preliminary objections were also raised. On merits, the factual position was admitted. It was pleaded that plaintiff's claim for interest has been rightly rejected. Various other pleas were also raised. Learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Fatehabad dismissed plaintiff's suit vide judgment and decree dated 15.12.2008. However, learned Additional District Judge, Fatehabad vide judgment and decree dated 27.11.2009 has allowed first appeal preferred by the plaintiff and thereby decreed the plaintiff's suit holding him entitled to interest @ 9 % per annum on the amount of arrears with effect from due date i.e. 1.2.1996 till payment in September, 2002. The defendants have been directed to pay the said amount of interest within three months. Feeling aggrieved, defendants have preferred the instant second appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. Counsel for the appellants vehemently contended that suit filed by the plaintiff is hopelessly barred by limitation as rightly held so by the trial court. On the other hand, counsel for the plaintiff-respondent vehemently contended that claim of the plaintiff for interest was rejected by defendants vide memos dated 8.10.2007 and 24.10.2007 and therefore, the suit filed on 14.6.2008 is within limitation. Regular Second Appeal No. 3721 of 2010 -3- I have carefully considered the rival contentions. It is undisputed that plaintiff's service were regularised vide order dated 19.4.2002. It is also undisputed that consequent arrears were paid to the plaintiff in September, 2002 whereas the suit was instituted on 14.6.2008 i.e. 5 years 9 months after the arrears were paid. Limitation period for filing suit was three years. Cause of action to claim interest on the arrears arose to the plaintiff when the arrears were paid without interest in September, 2002. Consequently, suit is hopelessly barred by limitation as the suit was not filed within three years thereof. Making of application or service of notice claiming interest and rejection thereof by the defendants would not extend the period of limitation. Once the limitation period starts running it does not stop. In this case, the limitation period started running from September, 2002 when cause of action arose to the plaintiff for the first time for claiming interest on the arrears. It may be added that neither party has led evidence to depict as to when for the first time, the plaintiff moved application to the defendants to claim interest on the amount of arrears. However, there is notice dated 12.7.2007 Ex. P1 served by the plaintiff. Prior to it, the plaintiff had moved application through proper channel to claim interest. Perusal of the trial court file reveals that Principal Secretary to Government of Haryana rejected plaintiff's claim for interest and conveyed it to Transport Commissioner, Haryana vide memo dated 4.9.2007, Ex. D3 with reference to memo dated 13.7.2007 of the Transport Commissioner. Thereupon, Transport Commissioner conveyed Regular Second Appeal No. 3721 of 2010 -4- the same to General Manager, Haryana Roadways vide memo dated 8.10.2007 Ex. D4 with reference to memo dated 19.1.2007 of the General Manager. In turn, the General Manager forwarded the same to the plaintiff vide endorsement dated 24.10.2007. From these documents, it emerges that application of plaintiff claiming interest was forwarded by General Manager vide his letter dated 19.1.2007. Consequently, it may be said that the said application might have been moved by the plaintiff to the General Manager of Haryana Roadways a little while before the same was forwarded by the General Manager to the Transport Commissioner vide letter 19.1.2007. Viewed from this angle, it would appear that even the said application was moved after expiry of limitation period of three years. However, even assuming for the sake of argument only that the said application was moved within limitation of three years even then limitation period would not get extended once it started running from September, 2002 when the arrears were paid to the plaintiff and cause of action to claim interest thereon arose to him at that time. From the aforesaid discussion, it is manifest that suit of the plaintiff is hopelessly barred by limitation. Consequently, finding of the lower appellate court that the suit is within limitation is perverse and illegal and therefore, unsustainable. Substantial question of law to this effect arises in the instant second appeal for adjudication and the same is accordingly answered in favour of the appellants. Necessary upshot of the aforesaid discussion is that the suit Regular Second Appeal No. 3721 of 2010 -5- filed by the plaintiff being time barred could not be decreed. Accordingly, the instant second appeal is allowed. Judgment and decree of the lower appellate court are set aside. Suit filed by the plaintiff stands dismissed. The parties are, however, left to suffer their respective costs throughout. ( L.N. Mittal ) December 01, 2011 Judge 'dalbir'