IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO 422 of 2009. Decided on: August 12, 2011. M/S R.K.Industrial Corporation …Petitioner Versus B.S.N.L. & Another …Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the appellant: Mr. A.K.Sood, Advocate. For the respondents Mr. Ratish Sharma, Advocate. Surjit Singh, Judge (oral) By means of the present petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenge has been thrown to the decree of the Civil Court, as affirmed by the first Appellate Court, i.e. the Court of District Judge, on the ground that suit was barred by limitation, on the face of it, but despite that, trial Court decreed it and the appellate Court upheld the decree. 2. Respondent, Bharat Sanchar Nigam, filed a suit for recovery of Rs.13, 057/- against the petitioner, on account of unpaid telephone bill, for the period from October, 1991 to December, 1991. Suit was filed on 6.10.2003. Petitioner, who was defendant in that suit, took the plea that suit was barred by time. Respondent, Bharat Whet her report ers of t he l ocal papers may be al l owed t o see t he j udgment ? Sanchar Nigam, denied that the suit was barred by time and pleaded that limitation was 30 years, as the respondent was an instrumentality of the State. Article 112 of Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963 was sought to be pressed into service. 3. Petitioner does not have the right to challenge the decree of trial Court, as affirmed by District Judge, by filing an appeal in this Court, because of the value of the suit being less than Rs.25,000/-, so, it has filed the present petition for quashing and setting aside the decree, on the ground that the same is illegal, being contrary to the provisions of Limitation Act. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. 5. On behalf of the respondents, it is submitted that respondent No. 1, i.e. Bharat Sanchar Nigam, being an instrumentality of the government, is covered by the definition of State, under Article 12 of the Constitution of India and as such, period of limitation, as prescribed under Article 112 of Schedule to the Limitation Act, is applicable to it. Submission is misconceived. Definition of State, as given in Article 12 of the Constitution of India and interpreted by various High Courts, as also the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in a number of judgments, is inclusive of the Central Government and State Governments. The definition includes all the instrumentalities of the State, like local self governments, companies, owned and controlled or financed by the governments, bodies created by Statutes of Parliament or State Legislatures, etc. etc. Article 112 of the Schedule to Limitation Act, prescribes extended limitation of 30 years in respect of suits, filed by or on behalf of the Central Government or any State Government and not the State, as defined in Article 12 of the Constitution of India. Hence, submission raised on behalf of the respondents, is rejected. 6. Consequently, present petition is allowed and the judgments and decrees of the trial Court, as also of the Appellate Court, Annexures P-4 and P-5, are quashed and set aside. Petition disposed of. August 12, 2011(PC) (Surjit Singh ), J.