Case: TOPLINE SHOES LIMITED AND ANOTHER Vs. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK

2. The respondent–Bank had filed an O.A. No.948 of 2000 against the present appellants raising certain claims. In the said proceedings, the appellants filed a counter-claim claiming therein that certain amount deposited in the current account opened by them with the respondent-Bank, was illegally withheld by the respondent–Bank. The learned DRT vide order dated 31st October 2002 dismissed both, the claim of the bank as well as the counter-claim of the appellants. Being aggrieved thereby, both the respondentBank as well as the appellants had preferred appeals before the learned DRAT. Both the appeals were dismissed. Being aggrieved thereby, two writ petitions were filed, one by the respondent-Bank and the other by the appellants. As far as the writ petition of the respondent-Bank is concerned, the same was disposed of as withdrawn since the respondentBank did not press the same. The writ petition of the appellants was, however, dismissed vide the impugned judgment. Being aggrieved thereby, the present appeal.

Reasoning:
6. By now, it is a settled principle of law that the issue of limitation is a mixed question of law and fact. The issue of limitation cannot be decided by ignoring the factual scenario.8. It could thus clearly be seen that in the factual position as apparent in the present matter, the specific case of the defendants-appellants was that the respondent-Bank had extracted the amount from them by exerting undue influence. It could further be seen that the Board of Directors of the Appellant had contemplated and considered the possibility of approaching the Court against the respondent– Bank. However, it was thought fit not to drag the respondent-Bank to the Court to avoid adverse publicity and mar their chances of receiving loans from other banks. It could thus be seen that the learned DRT has come to a finding of fact that it was the conscious decision of the appellants to pay off whatever amount was demanded by the respondent–Bank without joining the issue and they had accordingly paid the amount, may be much against their wishes.9. Admittedly, the said amount, which according to the appellants, was paid under undue influence in the year 1994.10. It appears that after waiting for a period of five years, the appellants woke up from their deep slumber and issued a notice on 22nd September 1999.11. The DRT, the DRAT as well as the High Court have concurrently held that the counter-claim of the appellants was based upon the amount deposited in the year 1994, which according to the appellants was paid under undue influence. If that be so, no error could be noticed in the finding of the fact as recorded by the DRT, the DRAT and the High Court that the counter-claim was squarely covered under Article 113 and not under Article 22 of the Limitation Act.