Regular Second Appeal No. 5042 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 5042 of 2009 Date of decision : March 25, 2010 M/s B.S.Sidhu & Company ....Appellant versus Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and another ....Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal Present : Mr. O.P. Goyal, Senior Advocate with Ms Kanwaljit Kaur, Advocate, for the appellant L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral) Defendant is in second appeal having lost in both the courts below. Suit was filed by the respondents i.e. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL) and Union of India against M/s B.S. Sidhu and Company (appellant) for recovery of 35701/- being outstanding amount of telephone bills of the defendant-appellant for the period from April, 1996 to November, 1996 which the defendant failed to pay. The defendant alleged the suit to be time barred. Defendant also raised various other pleas. The defendant disputed the correctness of the bills. Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana vide judgment Regular Second Appeal No. 5042 of 2009 -2- and decree dated 19.8.2008 decreed the suit for recovery of Rs 35701/- along with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till recovery. First appeal preferred by the defendant has been dismissed by learned District Judge, Ludhiana vide judgment and decree dated 8.4.2009. Feeling aggrieved, the defendant has preferred the instant second appeal. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the suit filed on 29.9.2003 is barred by limitation having been filed beyond the period of three years from the dates of accrual of cause of action. Reliance in support of this contention has been placed on a judgment of this Court in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited versus Pawan Kumar Gupta, 2007(4) Civil Court Cases 366. However, in that case it was simply determined that Article 112 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963 which prescribes limitation period of 30 years for suits filed by Central Government or State Government is not applicable to BSNL which is a government company. There cannot be any dispute with this legal position. However, it has to be noticed that the amount in suit was due to Union of India which had given the telephone connection to the defendant and the suit amount fell due while the defendant enjoyed the telephone connection under Union of India. It was only with effect from 1.10.2000 that BSNL came into existence. Till then, Union of India was entitled to recover the suit amount and suit on behalf of Union of India could be filed till the year 2026, cause of action having accrued in the year 1996. After the limitation period stood curtailed to three years on coming into existence Regular Second Appeal No. 5042 of 2009 -3- of BSNL, suit was filed within three years from the date of coming into existence of BSNL which admittedly came into existence on 1.10.2000. The suit was instituted on 29.9.2003 i.e. within three years. Consequently, the suit cannot be said to be time barred. In this view, I am supported by a judgment of this Court in the case of RSA No. 3558 of 2006, titled Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited versus H.V. Rai, Advocate, decided on 7.1.2008, which has also been brought to the notice of this Court by learned counsel for the appellant, to be fair to him. Said judgment is fully applicable to the facts of the case in hand. This Bench also took the same view in Regular Second Appeal No. 3817 of 2007, titled Rai Singh versus Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, decided on 23.9.2008. In view of the aforesaid, I find that the suit is not barred by limitation and there is no illegality in the judgments of the courts below on this count. No question of law much less substantial question of law arises for determination in the instant second appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. ( L.N. Mittal ) March 25, 2010 Judge 'tiwana'