A counter-claim is to be filed within the limitation period for filing a suit, as per Section 3(2)(b) of the Limitation Act, 1963.

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.

C.M. No. 27474/2018 (exemption)

1. Exemption allowed subject to just exceptions.

C.M. stands disposed of.

RFA No. 532/2018

2. This Regular First Appeal under Section 96 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is filed by the defendant in the suit impugning the Judgment of the Trial Court dated 24.4.2018 by which trial court has dismissed the counter-claim filed by the appellant/ defendant/counter claimant for a sum of Rs. 7,79,900/- along with interest.

3. The subject suit is a suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff/employee for recovery of moneys on account of his employment with the appellant/defendant/employer. The respondent/plaintiff prayed for recovery of Rs. 5.30 lacs along with interest. In essence the claim of the respondent/plaintiff was towards unpaid salary. In this suit of the respondent/plaintiff/employee, the appellant/defendant/employer filed the subject counter-claim pleading that this amount of Rs. 7,79,900/- as claimed in the counter claim had become due on account of the respondent/plaintiff not giving the correct details of the expenditure incurred and having therefore misappropriated an amount of Rs. 7,79,900/- which was claimed through the counter-claim. The relevant paras of the counter-claim as to how the amount claimed by the appellant/defendant/counter-claimant was due from the respondent/plaintiff are paras 3 to 6 of the counter-claim, and these paras 3 to 6 read as under:-

“3. That the respondent/plaintiff/respondent himself voluntarily resigned from the service of the claimant when he was found guilty of misappropriation of money of the claimant on 30.11.2011. The plaintiff/respondent himself submitted his resignation effective from 30.11.2011. Copy of the resignation is Annexure C-2.

4. That it is relevant to mention here that respondent/plaintiff himself admitted in his resignation letter that as the plaintiff/respondent was holding one laptop of the claimant was to be returned by 30.12.2011 as well as 17 registration certificates of the vehicles, but the plaintiff/respondent only returned the laptop in non-working condition which was got repaired by the claimant after spending Rs. 5000/-. It is also relevant to mention here that the plaintiff/respondent failed return the RCs of 17 vehicles and therefore the claimant again paid the charges of registration and got the registration certificates from the authority.

5. That the plaintiff/respondent is guilty of misappropriation of valuable money of the claimant and committed breach of trust. It is relevant to mention here that in the tenure of his services withdrawn total Rs. 13,71,000/- against vouchers nos. of which are mentioned in the ledger book of the claimant, duly signed by the plaintiff/respondent. Photocopies of the Ledger Book and the vouchers are ANNEXURE C-3 (colly).

6. That after withdrawal of huge money of the tune of Rs. 13,71,000/- on different dates, plaintiff/respondent did not file any receipt of expenditure till 09.10.2011, the claimant became suspicious about the working and conduct of the plaintiff/respondent and directed him to file the details of expenses. On 10.10.2011 the plaintiff/respondent filed the details as voucher nos. 223 to 226 for a total amount of Rs. 64,000/- and voucher No. 227 (Expanses of registration of 43 vehicles) amounting to Rs. 5,46,100/- and voucher No. 228 (Expanses of registration of 57 vehicles) amounting to Rs. 6,66,900/- all dated 10.10.2011. It is evident from the comparison of voucher Nos. 227 and 228. That plaintiff/respondent has fabricated the amount of charges i.e. 11700/- and 12700/- for the same work on the same date. It is also relevant to mention here that these two vouchers are in the handwriting of the plaintiff/respondent. None of the vouchers were accompanied with the receipts. As per the Govt. the charges to be deposited for registration of the one vehicle a