1. The plaintiff is an association of pensioners of ABN AMRO Bank. Defendant No.1, who is the only contesting defendant, (defendant) is the successor-in-title in title to ABN AMRO Bank. The plaintiff has sued for recovery of diverse amounts by way of pensionery benefits of its members upon the pension rules as also the assurances of the defendant to pay specified percentage of pensionable salary which has been increased by the defendant from time to time. The plaintiff has challenged the reductions made by the defendant in the percentage of pensionable salary agreed to be paid. This suit is filed for declaration that the reduction is bad in law and in breach of the contract of the defendant, that the defendant be stopped from reducing the pension of the agreed percentage, the challenge to the reduction of the specified percentage and an injunction against acting upon such reduction as also for deposit of specified amount towards the balance of the pension amount payable.

2. The plaintiff has also relied upon the Pension Rules 1975, under the Trust Deed executed by ABN AMRO Bank, the predecessor-in-title of the defendant with the trustees of the pension funds in 1975. The plaintiff has specifically sought to enforce rule 15 of the trust deed in respect of a scheme of insurance with the Life Insurance of India (LIC) or the purchase of an annuity from the LIC for the pensioners. The plaintiff has sought direction for directing the defendant to comply with rule 15 of the pension rules, to deposit specified amounts with the pension trust for purchase of annuities as per the said rule, for deposit of specified amount and for the purchase of annuities under the said rule.

3. The defendant has contended that the suit is barred by the law of limitation. That issue has been raised as a jurisdictional issue in the notice of motion taken out by the plaintiff for grant of interim reliefs based upon the aforesaid final reliefs.

4. The defendant also contends that if even a part of the plaintiff’s claim is held to be barred by the law of limitation, the remainder of the plaintiff’s claim would be less than the pecuniary jurisdiction of this Court and has accordingly challenged the Court’s pecuniary jurisdiction.

5. Two issues have been framed by this Court on 21st March, 2014.

1. Whether this Court has jurisdiction to try the suit.

2. Whether the suit is barred by the law of limitation.

6. Issue No.1 which relates to jurisdiction is, therefore, secondary. Issue No.2 which relates to the bar of limitation is, therefore, primary and is tried upon the arguments of both the parties.

7. It is conceded by the defendant that the main issue is the jurisdictional issue of limitation. Of course, if a part of the claim of the plaintiffs is held not barred and is seen to be of lesser than this Court’s pecuniary jurisdiction, the suit would be transferred to the Bombay City Civil Court for adjudication of that part of the plaintiff’s claim. Consequently both Counsel have argued upon the question of limitation.

8. It is the contention of the defendant that the plaint itself shows that the suit is barred by the law of limitation. Both Counsel have relied upon only the plaint including the annexures therein in support of their respective contentions with regard to the aspect of limitation.

Issue of Limitation:

The suit is in two parts.

1. Relating to the extent of percentage of pension payable on the pensionable salary of the pensioners. And

2. The enforcement of rule 15 of the pension rules.

1. Re-percentage of pension payable:

9. The predecessor-in-title of defendant and consequently defendant No.1 was liable to pay pension @ 1.67% of the pensionable salary of the pensioner.

10. Under a deed of memorandum of settlement dated 11th November, 1997 between the defendant's predecessor-in-title and their workmen, Exhibit-G to the plaint the defendant's predecessor-in-title agreed to increase the pension amount to 5% of such salary.

11. Thereafter unde