R.S.A No. 1798 of 2008 (O&M) ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A No. 1798 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision : February 10, 2010 Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, ...... Appellant (s) v. Jai Paul Garg, ...... Respondent(s) *** CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** Present : Mr. Anil Rathee, Advocate for the appellant. *** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? *** AJAY TEWARI, J (Oral) This appeal has been filed against concurrent judgments of the Courts below dismissing the suit of the appellant for recovery against the respondent on the ground that the respondent did not pay the bills of telephone which he used. The trial Court, while noticing that copies of the bills have not been produced on record, dismissed the suit both on merits as well as on limitation. The lower appellate Court did not consider the issue of limitation because it also came to the conclusion that since original bills were not produced by the appellant, it meant that best evidence was with- R.S.A No. 1798 of 2008 (O&M) ::2:: held and, thus, dismissed the suit. The following questions have been proposed :- “ (i) Whether the limitation is 30 years for recovery of Govt. of India dues as per Article 112 of the Limitation Act though the suit was filed by BSNL ? (ii) Whether the cause of action accrued to the BSNL with effect from its inception and limitation is to be counted from that date ? (iii) Whether mere filing of suit by BSNL which is a Govt. of India Enterprises, Article 112 of the Limitation Act will not have application particularly when the dues are of Govt. of India ? (iv) Whether the amount claimed in the recovery suit by BSNL considered to be a private money ? (v) Whether the suit was filed through a authorized person or suit can be dismissed only on the technical ground that the suit was not filed through authorized person ? (vi) Whether the learned lower appellate Court can go beyond the pleadings and decide the issue which was not raised before that Court ? (vii) Whether the learned lower appellate Court can go beyond the pleadings of the parties ? (viii) Whether manifest injustice has been done to the plaintiff/appellant by the learned Courts below ?” On merits, the main question is question No. (viii). Counsel for R.S.A No. 1798 of 2008 (O&M) ::3:: the appellant has argued that the register wherein the amount shown as recoverable was produced before the Court. However, he is not in a position to deny the finding that the appellant was in possession of office copies of the bills and the same were not produced. In this view of the matter, it has to be held that the best evidence was with-held by the appellant and consequently the finding of fact that the appellant has not been able to show that the amount was actually due cannot be held to be illegal. Counsel for the appellant has also sought to argue that the finding of the trial Court on the issue of limitation is legal. In my opinion, this fact not having weighed with the lower appellate Court, as well as the ground that on merits I have held that the appellant has not been able to prove that the amount was indeed due from the respondent, the remaining questions do not arise. Consequently, holding the questions proposed against appellant, this appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. As the main petition has since been dismissed, all the pending civil miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. ( AJAY TEWARI ) February 10, 2010. JUDGE `kk' R.S.A No. 1798 of 2008 (O&M) ::4::