In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh R.S.A. No. 1000 of 1987 Date of Decision: October 28, 2009 Sukh Ram Singh Virk …Appellant Versus State of Punjab and others …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR Present: None for the appellant. Mr. Rajesh Garg, Addl. AG, Punjab, for the respondents. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. This is plaintiff’s appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for brevity, ‘the Code’) against the concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the Courts below deciding a preliminary issue to the effect that the suit was time barred. The only question which arises for determination is ‘whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the suit could be regarded as time barred or not’. Both the Courts below have recorded categorical finding that the plaintiff-appellant had filed a suit for declaration to the effect RSA No. 1000 of 1987 that notification dated 5.9.1980 (Ex. D1) appointing the defendant- respondent No.3 on the post of Government Analyst was not sustainable in law as he did not answer the qualifications prescribed for appointment on the post of Government Analyst. A further declaration was also sought that the plaintiff-appellant was qualified and was, thus, entitled to be appointed for the post. Both the Courts below have recorded categorical finding that the appointment letter by way of notification dated 5.9.1980 (Ex. D1) appointing defendant-respondent No. 3 as Government Analyst was issued on 5.9.1980. The suit challenging the aforesaid notification was admittedly filed on 30.11.1983. After granting the benefit of two months for issuance notice under Section 80 of the Code, the suit could have been filed on or before 5.11.1983. The suit having been filed on 30.11.1983 was clearly time barred. Therefore, there is no escape from the conclusion that the findings recorded by both the Courts below on the preliminary issue are not open to any doubt and are hereby affirmed. The suit is held to be time barred and not maintainable. Accordingly, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) October 28, 2009 JUDGE Pkapoor 2