IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.1402 of 2007 Date of decision: 04.03.2010 Food Corporation of India and others ..Appellants Versus M/s Satish Kumar Aggarwal & Company ..Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI a). Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? b). To be referred to the Reporters or not ? c). Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? Present:- Mr.A.R.Takkar, Advocate for the appellants Mr.D.R.Singla, Advocate for the respondent . . . AJAY TEWARI, J. (ORAL) This appeal has been filed against the judgment of the learned Lower Appellate Court allowing the appeal of the respondent and thereby decreeing its suit for recovery. The respondent had filed the suit pleading that it had submitted a tender and had deposited Rs.56,100/- as security. Since, it was not successful in the tender, it was entitled to refund of said security amount. In written statement, the appellant took the plea that the respondent was a defaulter of the appellant and consequently, it was entitled to retain the security deposit. Learned Trial Court held that the appellant had not been able to establish that the respodent was a defaulter. However, the learned Trial Court held that since the money was deposited on 21.06.1996 and the present suit was filed only on 05.08.2000, the said suit was beyond limitation. The learned Lower Appellate Court, however, considered a letter dated 12.1.1998 (Exhibit P-17), which was a reply dated RSA No.1402 of 2007 -2- 12.01.1998 given by the appellant to the respondent, wherein the appellants have acknowledged the aforesaid debt by calling upon the appellant to produce No Objection Certificate for the refund of the security. As per the learned Trial Court, this acknowledgement had the effect of extending period of limitation. The learned Lower Appellate Court further noticed that even though there was no provision for interest on security deposit in the tendered document yet, in the circumstances of the case, since where the appellant had wrongly retained a money due to the respondent, it would be entitled to interest @ 6% from the date the amount became due till actual realisation. The following substantial questions of law have been proposed:- (a) Whether the Appellate Court below has erred in law by not drawing an adverse inference in view of plaintiff-respondent's own contention before the Lower Appellate Court wherein it was contended that Section 18(1) of the Limitation Act, 1963 is not applicable in the present case? (b) Whether the Appellate Court below has erred in law by decreeing the suit by ignoring the acknowledgement Ex.D/1 according to which the appellant/defendant was not entitled for refund of earnest money/security in question ? (c) Whether the suit of the plaintiff was time barred and the court below ignored the aspect of limitation in allowing the appeal and reversing the judgment of the Trial Court ? (d) Whether the court below has not framed proper issues arising out of the pleadings of the parties causing grave miscarriage of justice to the appellant/defendant ? Question Nos.(a), (b) and (c) are overlaping questions and relate to the issue of limitation. In the face of the document (Ex.P-17), RSA No.1402 of 2007 -3- it has to be held that the appellant had acknowledged that the amount was due to the respondent and had called upon the respondent to submit No Objection Certificate. Once, letter (Exhibit P-17) is taken to be acknowledgement, the period of limitation would be extended. Consequently, Question Nos.(a), (b) and (c) are answered against the appellants. Question no.(d) is a general question on which no argument has been addressed. In the circumstances, holding all the questions proposed against the appellant, this appeal is dismissed. Since the main appeal is decided, the Civil Miscellaneous Application, if any, stands disposed of. March 4, 2010 (AJAY TEWARI) Sukhpreet JUDGE