Correspondence and parleys between parties cannot extend the period of limitation for instituting a suit.

HIMA KOHLI, J.

1. The present suit has been instituted by the plaintiff for the recovery of a sum of Rs.54,50,960/- jointly and severally against the defendants. The reliefs sought by the plaintiff in the present suit are as follows:-

(A) Pass a decree for a sum of Rs.54,50,960.00 in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants jointly and severally.

(B) Pass an interim order to pay the monthly pension with immediate effect as it is required for the plaintiff to meet out the route expenses and other expenses such as medical as the plaintiff do not have any regular source of income at this age.

(C) Pass necessary directions against the defendant No.6 i.e. M/s Oracle Financial Services Software Ltd. thereby directing this defendant to pay the highest value of the shares which were allotted to the employees of M/s Citi Bank to the plaintiff of his share.

(D) Allow interest pendentility and future @ 12% per annum in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendant from the date of filing of the suit till its realization.

(E) Allow cost of the suit.”

2. The present suit was listed before the Joint Registrar for admission on 4.9.2012 on which date, learned counsel for the plaintiff had sought some time to produce the case law on the issue of limitation of the present suit. At his request, the matter was adjourned to 22.09.2012.

3. On 22.09.2012, the Joint Registrar heard the counsel for the plaintiff and was of the opinion that the present suit has been filed beyond the period of limitation and, therefore, the same has been placed before the Court.

4. Though it has been averred in the plaint that the plaintiff was employed with the Citibank in the year 1972 and his services were illegally terminated in the year 1994, for reasons best known to him, he has not impleaded Citibank as a defendant in the present suit. Instead, the plaintiff has impleaded the Chairman, Central Board of Direct Taxes as defendant No.1 the Trustee, Citi Bank Provident Fund Branch as defendant No.2, the Vice President & Managing Director of Citibank by name as defendant No.3, M/s Oracle Financial Services Ltd. as defendant No.5 and the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner as defendant No.6 (wrongly described as D-7 in the memo of parties).

5. Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that the services of the plaintiff were actually terminated in the year 1991 and this had resulted in litigation between him and Citibank which was finally settled in the year 1999 when Citibank had agreed to pay a sum of Rs.64 lacs to the plaintiff as a settlement amount. It is the case of the plaintiff that it was mandatory for Citibank to have issued to him a TDS Certificate under the Income Tax Act, but the needful was not done at the relevant time and nor did the bank provide him with Form 16 due to which he could not claim refund of the excess tax deposited by him with the Income Tax Authorities.

6. It is averred in the plaint that the aforesaid inaction on the part of the bank had resulted in huge losses to the plaintiff and after running from pillar to post for refund of the TDS deducted by the Bank, the plaintiff had written several letters/legal notices to the bank. Specific reference is made by learned counsel for the plaintiff to the letter dated 10.06.2010 addressed by the plaintiff to the CEO of Citibank and the reply dated 11.08.2010 addressed by the lawyers of the bank to the plaintiff.

7. A perusal of the letter dated 10.06.2010 addressed by the plaintiff to Citibank reveals that he had himself admitted that he had waited for a period of 12 years for issuance of the TDS Certificate and despite the same, the said certificate was not issued by the bank. In reply to the aforesaid letter, the lawyers of the bank had stated in their letter dated 11.08.2010 that all amounts that were due and payable to him by the bank had been duly paid and were accepted by him in full and final settlement and nothing further was due or payable by the Bank.

8. Learned counsel for