The main legal point established in the judgment is that the suit was not barred by limitation as the knowledge by the Plaintiffs was acquired within the limitation period, and Defendant No.2 was found guilty of misappropriating the shares.

ORDER

Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral). - This hearing has been done through video conferencing.

2. None appears for Respondent Nos.2 & 3/Defendant Nos. 2&3 (hereinafter "Defendant Nos. 2&3").

3. Vide order dated 14th July, 2021, notice was issued to the Respondents in the present second appeal. The ld. Registrar vide order dated 26th August, 2021, recorded that service of all Respondents was complete. Respondent No. 1/Defendant No. 1 (hereinafter "Defendant No. 1") was duly represented by his counsel on the said date. However, there was no appearance for Defendant Nos. 2&3. It was recorded that Defendant No.2 had been served through courier while Defendant No.3 was served through courier, email and dasti, which was even received by one Mr. Arun, Manager of Defendant No.3. Thereafter, since no one was appearing for Defendant Nos. 2&3, in order to give another opportunity to them to appear, vide order dated 4th October, 2021, this Court had directed fresh steps to betaken to serve Defendant Nos. 2&3. Defendant No.3 was also directed to be served through counsel appearing before the Trial Court. On the next date being 29th November, 2021, the ld. Registrar recorded that Defendant No.2 was unserved as the premises was found locked, therefore he was directed to be served fresh notice. It was also recorded that service by e-mail had been effected upon Defendant No.3 and the Registry was directed to report whether the same had bounced back or not.

4. It is clear from a perusal of the order sheet that despite service having been repeatedly effected upon Defendant Nos. 2&3, there is no appearance on their behalf before this Court. Even before the Trial Court and Appellate Court, this Court notes that Defendant No.2 was proceeded against ex-parte.

5. Insofar as Defendant No.1 is concerned, ld. counsel for the Appellants/Plaintiffs (hereinafter "Plaintiffs") submits that he does not press for any relief against Defendant No. 1.

6. As there is no appearance on behalf of Defendant Nos.2 & 3 despite service, the Court is proceeding to hear the matter.

7. The present second appeal arises out of the impugned judgment of the Appellate Court dated 22nd October, 2019 in RCA No. 61244/2916 titled KN Rao & Anr. v. Composite Securities Ltd. by which the Trial Court judgment dated 23rd December, 2014 in Suit No.567/12 titled Mr KN Rao & Anr. v. Composite Securities Ltd. & Ors. was upheld. In effect, the suit of the Plaintiffs for declaration and recovery was dismissed by both the Courts below. The primary ground for dismissal was that the suit was barred by limitation, though on merits the Trial Court held in favour of the Plaintiffs.

8. The case of the Plaintiffs in the suit is that both the Plaintiffs are senior citizens and Plaintiff No.1 - Mr. K.N. Rao - was working in Bank of Baroda (hereinafter "Bank"). The Plaintiffs owned certain shares in different banks, the details of which are as under:

"i. 500 shares of Bank of India held by Appellant No. 1;

ii. 300 shares of Bank of Baroda held by Appellant No. 2; &

iii. 100 shares of HDFC Bank held by Appellant No. 2 "

9. It is the case of the Plaintiffs that Mr. M.P. Jindal - Defendant No.2 was a colleague of Plaintiff No. 1 in the Bank where Plaintiff No. 1 was working. Post retirement of Plaintiff No. 1 from the Bank, since the Plaintiffs had to move to their native town, they handed over/entrusted the aforementioned shares/securities owned by them, to Defendant No.2, for dealing with and maintaining the same as per their instructions. M/s. Alankit Assignments -Defendant No.3 was the share broker/Depository Participant of the said shares owned by the Plaintiffs.

10. The Plaintiffs have contended in their suit that the above three sets of shares were under the control of Defendant No.2 due to the authorizations given to him by the Plaintiffs, by way of blank signed delivery instruction slips. The Plaintiffs, af