Judgment

RANGANATH MISRA, J.:- This appeal is by special leave and is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh by which the High Court has in second appeal upheld the dismissal of the plaintiffs suit on the plea of limitation.

2. The plaintiff, a Government Servant of Madhya Pradesh, was dismissed from service by the Collector on 13th of January, 1966. He preferred an appeal to the Divisional Commissioner and that appeal was dismissed on 31-8-1966. The order of dismissal of the appeal was communicated to the plaintiff on 19-9-1966. The plaintiff gave notice under S. 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure on 17-6-1969 and filed his suit on 30th of September, 1969, asking for a declaration that the order of dismissal was inoperative and he continued to be in service. This suit has been dismissed in the Courts below on acceptance of the defence plea that it had not been filed within three years from the date when the cause of action first arose, as required under Article 58 of the First Schedule of the Limitation Act, 1963.

3. When this appeal came up for hearing before a Division Bench, reliance was placed on the decision of this Court in Sita Ram Goel v. The Municipal Board, Kanpur, 1959 SCR 1148 : (AIR 1958 SC 1036) in support of the contention that the suit was barred by limitation. The Division Bench extracted a passage from Goels judgment where it said (at p. 1042 of AIR):

The result is no doubt unfortunate for the appellant, because the trial Court found in his favour in regard to his plea of wrongful dismissal. If he had only brought the suit within the period prescribed by Section 326 of the Act, he might possibly have got some relief from the Court. He, however, chose to wait till the decision of the State Government on his appeal and overstepped the limit of time to his own detriment. We are unable to come to any other conclusion than the one reached above and the appeal must, therefore, stand dismissed; but in the peculiar circumstances of the case we make no order as to costs.

and observed:

"Such unfortunate results should be avoided, if it is possible to do so. We are of the view that the decision in Sita Ram Goels case which has been decided by a bench of five Judges requires to be reconsidered ........."

(See 1988 (Supp) SCC 522)

That is how this appeal has come before the Seven Judge Bench.

4. The plaintiffs suit was one to obtain a declaration that the order of dismissal was bad and he continued to be in service. To such a suit the Courts below have rightly applied Article 58 of the First Schedule of the Limitation Act. That Article runs thus:

"58. To obtain any other declaration Three years When the right to sue first accrues.

13

5. Appellants counsels placed before us the residuary Article 113 and has referred to a few decisions of some High Courts where in a situation as here reliance was placed on that Article. It is unnecessary to refer to those decisions as on the authority of the judgment of this Court in the case of Pierce Leslie & Co. Ltd. v. Violet. Ouchterlong Wapshare Vice Versa (1969) 3 SCR 203: (AIR 1969 SC 843), it must be held that Article 113 of the. Act of 1963, corresponding to Article 120 of the old Act, is a general one and would apply to suits to which no other Article in the schedule applies.

6. The fate of this appeal, therefore, rests upon the finding as to when the right to sue first accrued. All the three Courts have accepted the position that on 13-1-1966 when the order of dismissal was made by the Collector, the right to sue first accrued . Admittedly, the suit was not filed within a period of three years from that date. The appeal was dismissed on 31-3-1966. The sixty days time spent for complying with the requirement of notice under S. 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure was available to the plaintiff in addition to the period of three years. If the date, therefore, counts from the date of the appellate order, the suit would be within time.

7. In Goels case (AIR 1958 SC 1036)