IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No.2040 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 4th August, 2011 M/s Sunder Dass Inder Sain … Appellant Versus Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited … Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. Gurdial Singh Jaswal, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Anil Rathee, Advocate for the respondent. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) Present regular second appeal has been filed by M/s Sunder Dass Inder Sain through its Proprietor Inder Sain-defendant to the suit filed by Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (previously Department of Telecommunication). The respondent-plaintiff had instituted a suit for recovery of Rs.27,451/- being the amount of arrear on account of the use of telephone No.RPR-23081 along with future interest @ 12% per annum, costs and charges from the date of filing of the suit till its realization. The appellant-defendant had obtained a telephone connection at his business premises near PWD Rest House, Ropar. Subsequently, this connection was transferred to Shop No.7, Grain Market, Ropar. The consumer, i.e. appellant-defendant failed to deposit the bill of user and shifting charges, total amounting to Rs.27,451/-. As Regular Second Appeal No.2040 of 2010 (O&M) per the terms and conditions of bill, on failure to deposit the amount the subscriber had to pay surcharge for the late payment. Various requests made by the General Manager, Telephone Department had borne no fruit and the arrears of bill became due towards the subscriber. A registered notice was also served upon the appellant-defendant on 6th August, 2003 but in spite of the same the appellant-defendant had not paid the bill and hence, the suit was instituted. Upon notice of the suit, appellant-defendant appeared and raised many preliminary objections questioning the locus-standi of the respondent-plaintiff and furthermore that the suit is bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of the necessary parties. It was further stated that the amount for use of telephone from 11th January, 1999 to 11th March, 1999 has become time barred as the suit was filed on 10th September, 2003. The trial Court had formulated following issues: “1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for recovery of Rs.27,451/- along with interest as prayed for? OPP 2. Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD 3. Whether the suit is barred by limitation? OPD 4. Whether the plaintiff has got no locus standi to file the present suit? OPD 5. Whether the suit is bad for mis joinder and non joinder of the necessary parties? OPD 6. Whether the suit has not been filed by a competent person? OPD 7. Relief.” The trial Court decided issue No.1 in favour of the respondent-plaintiff and against the appellant-defendant. The Court held that Union of India transferred all its assets and liabilities to the plaintiff 2 Regular Second Appeal No.2040 of 2010 (O&M) Company on 1st October, 2000 and therefore, the limitation for the Government to file the suit is 30 years under Article 112 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Thus, the Court decided issues No.2 to 6 in favour of the respondent-plaintiff and decreed the suit. Aggrieved against the same, present appellant-defendant filed an appeal. The lower appellate Court also affirmed the findings recorded by the trial Court. The only question which has been raised before this Court is as to whether the suit instituted by the respondent-plaintiff was time barred or not. In other words, whether the suit could be instituted within a period of three years by a Company held by the Central Government or it is to be construed that in view of the transfer of assets and liabilities, and the amount which became due to Central Government of India, the period of limitation prescribed will be 30 years or not. Mr. Gurdial Singh Jaswal, Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant-defendant, has relied upon ‘Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited v. Pawan Kumar Gupta’ 2007(4) Civil Court Cases 366 (P&H), wherein it was held that Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited is a Company owned and controlled by the Government, and thus, cannot be termed as Central Government under the provisions of General Clauses Act, 1897 and therefore, the period of limitation shall be three years. Mr. Anil Rathee, Advocate appearing for the respondent- plaintiff, has relied upon a judgment rendered by this Court in ‘Rai Singh v. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited’ (RSA No.3817 of 2007, decided on 23rd September, 2008). It will be apposite here to reproduce extensively from Rai Singh’s case (supra), as under: 3 Regular Second Appeal No.2040 of 2010 (O&M) “Learned counsel for the appellant next contended that the suit is barred by limitation inasmuch as the major amount is of the bills dated 1.9.1997 and the suit was instituted on 26.9.2003 i.e. after expiry of six years from the date of bills when the cause of action accrued, and limitation period for filing the suit by the plaintiff, being a Company incorporated under the Companies Act, was only three years like any other person. This contention although apparently attractive is also devoid of merit. The plaintiff- Corporation came into existence with effect from 1.10.2000. Prior to it, Department of Telecommunication of Union of India was entitled to file the suit for recovery of the disputed amount having granted the telephone connection to the defendant. Limitation period for any suit to be filed by Department of Telecommunication was 30 years in accordance with Article 112 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963. However, after the plaintiff- Corporation came into existence w.e.f. 1.10.2000, the limitation period for the plaintiff was admittedly only three years. However, in the instant case, if limitation period of three years is counted from 1.9.1997, the date of the bills in question, the limitation period had expired even before the plaintiff-Corporation came into existence on 1.10.2000. However, it cannot be said that the plaintiff could not file the instant suit at all. If the plaintiff-Corporation had not come into existence, the limitation period for suit to be filed by Union of India would have expired in August 2027. However, after the plaintiff came into existence w.e.f. 1.10.2000, it may be said that the limitation period for filing the suit by the plaintiff commenced with effect from that date i.e. with effect from 1.10.2000 and therefore, suit filed on 26.9.2003 i.e. within three years thereof, is well within limitation. This conclusion of mine finds support from unreported judgment dated 7.1.2008 of this Court in Regular Second Appeal No.3558 of 2006 titled as ‘Bharat 4 Regular Second Appeal No.2040 of 2010 (O&M) Sanchar Nigam Limited vs. H.V.Rai, Advocate’. However, learned counsel for the appellant in support of his contention placed reliance on ‘Bihar State Electricity Board, Patna and another vs. M/s Gaya Cotton Jute Mills Ltd.’ AIR 1979 Patna 83. In that case, Electricity Board came into existence on 1.4.1958 and the suit was filed on 27.9.1962 i.e. more than four years after the Electricity Board had come into existence. Thus, in that case, the suit was not filed even within three years after the Electricity Board came into existence. In addition to it, there was a special provision in Section 60-A of the Electricity (Supply) Act, introduced by amendment, to provide for limitation period for suits to be filed by Electricity Board. Consequently, this judgment has no applicability to the instant case. Similarly, judgment in the case of ‘Amar Singh vs. State of Punjab and another’ (1969)2 I.L.R. Punjab & Haryana 81, cited by learned counsel for the respondent, also has no applicability to the case in hand because in that case also, there was a specific statutory provision provided for such situation. In the instant case, however, no corresponding statutory provision has been brought to the notice of this Court by either party. In the absence thereof, the ordinary period of limitation of three years shall be deemed to have commenced on 1.10.2000, when the plaintiff came into existence. Any other interpretation would make the suit of the plaintiff to be time barred even before the plaintiff came into existence. Judgment in the case of ‘Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited vs. H.V.Rai, Advocate (supra) is squarely applicable to the instant case. Consequently, the suit is held to be within limitation.” I find myself in agreement with the proposition of law propounded in Rai Singh’s case (supra), as in case of Pawan Kumar Gupta (supra) the question that the amount which had become due to 5 Regular Second Appeal No.2040 of 2010 (O&M) the Central Government earlier to the incorporation of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited was not an issue under consideration. Hence, there is no merit in the present appeal and the same is hereby dismissed. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE August 4, 2011 rps 6