Case: ORISSA STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATION Vs. M/S VIGYAN CHEMICALS INDUSTRIES

1. The High Court hearing the Second Appeal out of which this appeal has arisen had framed the following substantial question of law for a decision: Whether the suit was barred by period of limitation under the provisions of Section 21 of the Limitation Act, in the light of the fact that the appellant shall made a party in the suit in the year 1994 and by that time, the suit was barred by the period of limitation. 2. The answer to the question being in the negative, the Orissa State Financial Corporation (hereinafter referred to as OSFC), which was impleaded as the 4th defendant in the suit has chosen to file this appeal. 3. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties. 4. The appellant - OSFC was impleaded as the 4th defendant in the suit on 6.12.1994. The said impleadment was made on the basis that the units of the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 in the suit for recovery were taken over by the appellant - OSFC under Section 29 of the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951. On 20th August, 2001 the suit was decreed for a sum of Rs. 84,170/- along with interest at the rate of 24% per annum with effect from 1st March, 1988 to 23rd September, 1992 and from 23rd September 1992 till date of payment compound interest at the rate of 2% per month. 5. In appeal, the appellant - OSFC (defendant No.4), inter alia, raised the question of limitation. An application under Section 21(1) of the Limitation Act, 1963 was filed by the plaintiff in the suit before the First Appellate Court seeking a specific order that the date of impleadment of the 4th defendant - OSFC should be ordered to be from the date of filing of the suit. The matter was remanded to the learned trial Court and the learned trial Court by order dated 5th November, 2005 allowed the said application under Section 21(1) of the Limitation Act, 1963 and ordered that the impleadment of the 4th defendant - OSFC (appellant herein) would be from the date of the filing of the suit i.e. 29th February, 1988. The said order of the learned trial Court dated 5th November, 2005 was not challenged and has attained finality. 6. Taking into account the aforesaid facts, the High Court by the order under challenge thought it proper to answer the question of law framed in the negative and to hold the suit against the defendant No.4 - OSFC (appellant herein) to be maintainable. 7. If the order dated 5th November, 2005 passed by the learned trial Court ordering that the impleadment of the defendant No.4 - OSFC would be effective from the date of filing of the suit, has gone unchallenged and has attained finality we do not see how we can find any fault with the order of the High Court passed in Second Appeal. The issue before the High Court in the Second Appeal being limited to the question of limitation, consideration of any other issue will not arise. We, therefore, cannot find any error in the impugned order so far as the maintainability of the suit against the 4th defendant - OSFC (appellant herein) is concerned.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]7. If the order dated 5th November, 2005 passed by the learned trial Court ordering that the impleadment of the defendant No.4 - OSFC would be effective from the date of filing of the suit, has gone unchallenged and has attained finality we do not see how we can find any fault with the order of the High Court passed in Second Appeal. The issue before the High Court in the Second Appeal being limited to the question of limitation, consideration of any other issue will not arise. We, therefore, cannot find any error in the impugned order so far as the maintainability of the suit against the 4th defendant - OSFC (appellant herein) is concerned.