IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Regular Second Appeal No.3558 of 2006 Date of Decision: January 07, 2008 Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited .......Appellant Versus H.V.Rai, Advocate .......Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. D. ANAND Present: Mr.Ashwani Talwar, Advocate for the appellant. Mr.Rajan Gupta, Advocate for the respondent. --- S. D. ANAND, J. 1. The appellant is the plaintiff whose cause for the recovery of telephone charges was dismissed by the learned Trial Court and the learned First Appellate Court as time barred. The first bill pertains to the month of 5/89 and the last bill to that of 1/94. The suit filed on 29.1.2001 was held to be time barred. No findings on merit were recorded. 2. Learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the appellant, argues that the finding on point of limitation is incorrect on the face of it because the appellant was initially described as the Department of Telecommunication which got converted into Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. only w.e.f. 1.10.2000. If the suit was to be filed by the Department of Telecommunication, it would have been competent within a period of 30 years which was to be counted with effect from the accrual of cause of action. 3. There can be no controversy that the period of limitation prescribed under Article 112 of the Limitation Act, 1963 in respect of “any Regular Second Appeal No.3558 of 2006 -2- suit (except a suit before the Supreme Court in the exercise of its original jurisdiction) by or on behalf of the Central Government or any State Government, including the Government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir” is 30 years. As the first bill pertains to the year 1989, the limitation for the filing of the indicated cause would have been over in the year 2019. It is only in the year 2000 that the Department of Telecommunication got converted into a Corporation. If the initially allowable period is taken into consideration, the suit filed was within time. If the ordinary period of limitation is to be counted, the computation therefor would have been done w.e.f. 1.10.2000 i.e. the date with effect from which the Department of Telecommunication got converted into Bharat Sanchar Corporation Ltd. 4. In the light of foregoing discussion, the finding recorded by both the Courts on point of the suit being time barred has to be invalidated and it is so held accordingly. In view of the fact that the learned Trial Court did not record any finding on merits, the matter has to compulsively go to the learned Trial Court for disposal on merits. 5. The parties through their learned counsel, are directed to appear before the District Judge, on 15.1.2008. The matter shall be assigned to the Successor of the learned Trial Court for disposal according to law. As the civil suit pertains to the year 2000, it shall be accorded noticeable priority for disposal and the learned District Judge shall maintain a tab on the progress of the case. ( S. D. ANAND ) January 07, 2008 JUDGE SRM Note: Whether referred to reporter ? Yes/No