The issue of limitation in a case involving a mixed question of law and fact should be appropriately determined at the trial stage and not used as a basis for rejecting the plaint at the threshold.

JUDGMENT

C. V. Bhadang, J -Admit. The respective Additional Government Advocates waive service. Heard finally by consent of the parties.

2. All these appeals involve a common and connected issue as to the legality of the order, rejecting the plaint under Order VII, Rule 11(d) of Civil Procedure Code (CPC). As such, all these appeals are being disposed of finally by consent of parties, by this common judgment.

3. The brief facts are that the appellants were awarded various civil contracts for execution of certain civil works in the year 2010. The work was completed somewhere in the year 2010- 2011. The respective appellants have filed five separate suits for recovery of the security deposit along with interest on the ground that the same has not been returned in spite of a notice being sent and matter being pursued. In the suits, applications came to be filed on behalf of the respondent/ State, for rejection of plaint under Order VII, Rule 11(a) and (d) of CPC.

4. It was contended that the plaint does not disclose cause of action and is otherwise barred by limitation in as much as the work was completed in 2010-2011 and suits came to be filed in February, 2016.

5. The learned District Judge found that the suits would be governed by Article 18 of Schedule II of the Limitation Act, where the limitation period of three years is provided, from the date when ''the work is done''. The learned District Judge has, thus, found that the work having been completed in the year 2010- 11, the suits filed in the year 2016 are barred by limitation. The plaints thus came to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 (d) of CPC.

6. I have heard Shri Coutinho, the learned Counsel for the appellant and the learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondents.

7. It is submitted by Shri Coutinho, the learned Counsel for the appellant/s that the issue of limitation is a mixed question of law and fact and ideally, it ought to have been decided at the trial. It is submitted that in a given case, the Trial Court can take up the issue as preliminary issue, where the parties may have benefit of leading oral and documentary evidence and then the Court can decide the matter. It is submitted that in a case of present nature, the plaint cannot be rejected at the threshold on the ground that it is barred by limitation. The learned Counsel has taken exception to the finding recorded by the learned District Judge that the suit would be governed by Article 18 of the Limitation Act. It is submitted that the suit is not for recovery of the price of the work done by the appellant/s as the respondents have already passed the final bill and the said amount is paid to the appellant/s. It is thus, submitted that the learned District Judge was in error in holding that the suit would be governed by Article 18 of the Limitation Act. The learned Counsel submits that the suits were squarely governed by the residuary Article namely Article 113 of the Limitation Act, where the period of three years would commence from the date when the ''right to sue accrues''. It is submitted that in the present case, admittedly, the matter was referred to Vigilance Department and the Vigilance Department, after necessary enquiry, had returned the file on 13/11/2013. It is submitted that thereafter, the appellant issued a notice under Section 80 of CPC on 15/09/2015. It is submitted that the respondents did not reply to any of the notices and as such, the suits filed in February, 2016 would be well within limitation.

8. The learned Additional Government Advocate has supported the impugned order. It is submitted that the suits would be governed by Article 18 of the Limitation Act and even otherwise, the suits would be barred in as much as they are not filed within three years from the accrual of cause of action as contemplated under Article 113 of the Limitation Act. She submits that the work was completed in the year 2010-11 and the appellant did not file the suits within three years thereafte