IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA O.S.A. No.4 of 2002 Date of decision: 16.7.2008. Sh.Badri Sain Rekong Mehta ....Appellant -Versus- State of H.P. and others ….Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Deepak Gupta,Judge. The Hon’ble Mr.Justice V.K.Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? No For the Appellant: Mr.Anuj Nag, Advocate For the Respondents: Mr.R.M. Bisht, Dy.A.G. Deepak Gupta, J.(Oral) This Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 13th March, 2001 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in Civil Suit No.91 of 1996 dismissing the suit filed by the appellant (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff). Briefly stated the facts relevant for decision of this appeal are that according to the plaintiff he had been taking contracts for extraction of fuel wood on the road side in Kalpa area in the years 1964-65 and 1965-66. He had also purchased certain trees during the period 1963-64. The case of the plaintiff was that out of the timber and fuel wood extracted by him he could only sell some portion of the timber and the balance timber remained at the spot. The explanation of the plaintiff is that he remained ill for about 15 years and therefore 2 could not sell the timber. In 1984 the plaintiff applied to the respondent-State for grant of No Objection Certificate (NOC) to sell the timber. This was refused. Some timber of the plaintiff was also seized by the Block Officer of the Forest Department Kalpa on 19.10.1988. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed CWP No.401 of 1990. This writ petition was disposed of with a direction that the application filed by the plaintiff for grant of NOC should be considered after holding an inquiry in which inquiry the plaintiff be also associated. Admittedly, an inquiry was held and thereafter on 21.5.1991 some more timber was also seized. The plaintiff filed the suit on 8.11.1994 claiming damages of Rs.10 lakhs for the wrongful seizure of his timber. The defendants contested the suit on various grounds including the ground that in the inquiry it had been found that the timber had been illegally extracted by the plaintiff and it was also found that the plaintiff despite having not obtained NOC had already sold major portion of the fuel wood and timber. It is also pleaded that the suit is not within limitation. On the pleadings of the parties the following issues were framed: “1.Whether the suit is within time? ..OPP 2.Whether the seizure of timber of the plaintiff, as alleged in the plaint, was in accordance with law or not?...OPP 3.In case issue No.2 is found in the affirmative, whether the plaintiff is entitled to any amount of compensation on account of such seizure, if so, how much? …OPP 3 4.Whether the action of defendants in declining ‘No Objection Certificate’ was according to law or not?..OPP” The learned Single Judge decided issue No.1 against the plaintiff and held that the suit is not within limitation and therefore he did not decide issues 2 to 4 on the ground that since the suit is not within limitation he is not required to decide the remaining issues. This judgment is under challenge before us. We have heard Sh.Anuj Nag, learned counsel for the appellant and Sh.R.M. Bisht, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State. The first contention raised by Sh.Anuj Nag, learned counsel for the plaintiff is that in terms of Order 14(2) of the CPC the Court is required to give findings on all issues unless it is decided at the initial stage itself to try an issue of law as a preliminary issue. There can be no quarrel with this contention of Sh.Anuj Nag. In fact a Full Bench of this Court in Prithvi Raj Jhingta and another vs. Gopal Singh and another, Latest HLJ 2006 (HP)(FB) 1179, on consideration of the entire law held as follows: “8.Based upon the aforesaid reason therefore, and in the light of legislative background of Rule 2 and the legislative intent as well as mandate based upon such as well as on its plain reading, we have no doubt in our minds that except in situations perceived or warranted under sub-rule(2) where a Court in fact frames only issues of law in the first instance and postpones settlement of other issues, under sub-rule (1), clearly and explicitly in situations where the Court has framed all issues together, both of the law as well as facts and has also tried all these issues together, it is not open to the Court in such a situation to adopt the principle of severability and proceed to decide issues of law first, without taking up simultaneously other issues for decision. This course of action is not available to a Court because sub-rule (1) does not permit the Court to adopt any such principle of severability and to dispose of a suit only on preliminary issues, or what can be termed as issues of law. Sub-rule 4 (1) clearly mandates that in a situation contemplated under it, where all the issues have been framed together and have also been taken up for adjudication during the course of the trial, these must be decided together and the judgment in the suit as a whole must be pronounced by the Court covering all the issues framed in the suit.” However, after having held so, the question which next arises is whether we should set-aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge and remand the case to the learned Single Judge only on this ground. The judgment of the Full Bench was delivered on 7th September, 2006 and the decision in the present case was rendered on 13th March, 2001. We also find that even on the case as set-up in the plaint itself the suit of the plaintiff is not within limitation. Therefore, it will be an exercise in futility to remand the case back. We have therefore asked learned counsel for the plaintiff to first argue on the point of limitation and if we are convinced on this issue we would obviously hear the matter on merits. As per the averments made in the plaint itself the timber was seized in two phases. Firstly it was seized on 19.10.1988 and thereafter on 21.5.1991. Without going into the controversy as to whether it is Article 91 or Article 100 of the Limitation Act which is applicable, even if a view in favour of the plaintiff is accepted the limitation for filing the suit would not be more than three years from the date the cause of action arose. In fact limitation in respect of first lot of timber seized on 19.10.1988 expired on 19.10.1991. As far as the second lot seized on 21.5.1991 is concerned the limitation would expire on 21.5.1994. Even if two months period is extended on account of notice required to be delivered under Section 80 CPC in 5 terms of Section 15(2) of the Limitation Act then also the limitation would have expired on 21.7.1994. The suit was filed on 8.11.1994. It was patently not within limitation. Therefore, we find no merit in the appeal which is accordingly rejected. No order as to costs. ( Deepak Gupta ), Judge July 16, 2008. ( V.K. Ahuja ), PV Judge