RSA No.4835/2010(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.4835/2010(O&M) Date of decision: 06.12.2011. Sheel Lata Gupta ....................Appellant vs. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited .....................Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Jaswant Singh Present: Mr. Arun Yadav, Advocate for the apellant. Jaswant Singh.J.(Oral) Defendant/appellant Sheel Lata Gupta in the present regular second appeal has laid challenge to the judgement and decree dated 29.01.2010 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Rewari whereby appeal filed by the plaintiff/respondent-BSNL was allowed and the judgment and decree dated 03.06.2009 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge(Senior Division), Rewari dismissing the suit for recovery filed by the plaintiff/respondent-BSNL was set aside. In nutshell, plaintiff/respondent-BSNL filed a suit for recovery of Rs.63,004/- against the defendant/appellant alleging therein that she was subscriber of telephone connection number 25542, which RSA No.4835/2010(O&M) 2 was closed for non payment of bills and that she was under obligation to pay all the dues/bills and other charges in respect of the aforesaid telephone connection. It was further alleged that despite repeated demands and written notices the defendant had failed to pay the dues and hence the plaintiff-company was entitled to recover the outstanding amount being assignee/successor in interest of department of Telecommunications as the said department transferred all its assets and liabilities to the plaintiff company w.e.f. 01.10.2000 in view of new telecom policy framed by government of India in the year 1999. The appellant/defendant denied the claim of the plaintiff/respondent on various grounds including maintainability, locus standi, cause of action, limitation, estoppel, non joinder of necessary parties and jurisdiction. Plaintiff filed replication reiterating the claim made in the plaint. On the pleadings of the parties trial Court framed issues. Both sides led evidence in respect of their respective claims. The learned Trial Court after appreciating the material available on record found that defendant had remained consumer of telecommunications department and a sum of Rs.63,004/- was outstanding against her and as such the plaintiff was within his right to recover the said amount from the defendant. However, the suit of the plaintiff/respondent was dismissed on the ground that the suit was barred by limitation as the plaintiff/respondent is a company incorporated under the Companies Act and as such was a separate and distinct entity from the Central RSA No.4835/2010(O&M) 3 Government. It is worthwhile to note that against the findings of the trial Court on Issue no.1 & 4 to the effect that defendant/appellant was a subscriber of the telecommunications department and that she had failed to pay the outstanding amount, the defendant/appellant chose to remain silent and did not file any appeal/cross objections. Aggrieved against the judgement and decree of the trial Court plaintiff/respondent filed appeal which was allowed by the learned Additional District Judge, vide impugned judgement and decree dated 29.01.2010. It is submitted by learned Counsel for the defendant/appellant that the learned Appellate Court has erred in not considering the fact that transfer of assets and liabilities in favour of the plaintiff/respondent does not legally gave a fresh cause of action and limitation in case limitation is to be counted from the last date fixed for payment of bills. After hearing the learned Counsel for the defendant/appellant I find no question of law much less substantial question of law which may require determination in the present regular second appeal. The learned Additional District Judge, Rewari found that the bills in question pertained to the period from 1995 to 1997. As regards limitation it was noticed by the learned Appellate Court that admittedly the plaintiff corporation came into existence w.e.f. 01.10.2000 and all the assets and liabilities of the department of telecommunications were RSA No.4835/2010(O&M) 4 taken over by the plaintiff. Prior to the coming into existence of the plaintiff corporation the department of telecommunications was entitled to file suit for recovery in which case the limitation period was 30 years in accordance with Article 112 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act 1963. It was further noticed by the learned Appellate Court that if the plaintiff corporation had not come into existence the limitation period for filing the suit by Union of India would have expired in August 2027. However, after the plaintiff corporation came into existence w.e.f. 01.10.2000 it may be said that the limitation period for filing the suit commenced w.e.f. 01.10.2000 and the present suit was filed on 30.09.2003 and as such it was not barred by limitation. While holding so the learned Appellate Court placed reliance on a decision of this Court in RSA No.3817 of 2007 decided on 23.09.2008(Rai Singh Vs. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited). In my opinion the aforesaid findings of the learned Appellate Court are just and legal and no fault can be found with the same. In view of the foregoing discussion, finding no merit in this appeal I hereby dismiss the same. 06.12.2011 (Jaswant Singh) joshi Judge