The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Delhi Development Authority (DDA), though a statutory body, has its own identity different from the government and therefore, the suit for recovery was governed by Article 55 of Schedule I of the Limitation Act, which prescribes the period of limitation as 3 years.

JUDGMENT

Rekha Palli, J. (Oral) - The present regular first appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter, CPC) seeks to assail the judgment and decree dated 19.10.2019 passed by the Ld. ADJ-02, Saket Courts, New Delhi in CS DJ No. 1863/2017. Vide the impugned judgment, the learned Trial Court has dismissed the suit for recovery filed by the appellants/Delhi Development Authority(DDA) by holding that the same was barred by limitation.

2. Before dealing with the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant, it would be appropriate to note the brief factual matrix.

3. The appellant/plaintiff entered into an agreement with the respondent/defendant on 04.01.2002 for construction of 272 MIG Houses at Sector-12, Pkt.8, Dwarka, Phase-I with a stipulation that the project would commence from 08.01.2002 and would be completed on or before 07.01.2004. As the project was completed in time by the respondent, the appellant released the entire due amount as per the 17th Running account bill in it's favour in March, 2006 itself. It is the appellant's case that the said payment was made subject to the respondent carrying out the requisite rectifications, which it failed to do despite repeated requests of the appellant.

4. On 28.05.2015, the appellant instituted a suit against the respondent alleging therein that even though the construction carried out by the respondent was found to be substandard, it failed to rectify the defects and was therefore, liable to refund a sum of Rs.42,75,578.85/- along with interest @ 18%. per annum.

5. The suit was defended by the respondent by filing a written statement wherein a preliminary objection regarding the suit being barred by limitation was raised.

6. Based on the pleadings exchanged by the parties, a preliminary issue regarding limitation was framed by the learned Trial Court, which came to be decided against the appellant vide the impugned judgment. The Trial Court, while dismissing the suit preferred by the appellant, rejected its plea that it's claim was covered by Article 112 of Schedule I of Limitation Act and not by Article 55 of the said Act. The learned Trial Court also rejected the appellant's plea that limitation would commence from the date of the last letter written by the appellant demanding the amount from the respondent. The relevant extracts of the impugned judgment read as under:-

' In the considered opinion of this court, the limitation period shall not start from the date when the plaintiffs wrote its last letter i .e . on 05.06.2012 explaining the entire manner in which the amount was due and recoverable from the defendant were finalized. If such a plea is accepted by this court, then there shall be no end for the start of limitation period as required under the law . Admittedly in the present case the date of completion of contract was 31.10.2003 and the date of making last payment by the plaintiffs to the defendant was 31.03.2006. In view of the aforesaid, it is clear that the limitation for filing the present suit left with the plaintiff's / DDA was till 30.03.2009 and the present case filed by the plaintiffs / DDA on 28.05.2015 is baired by law of limitation as it has been filed beyond the period of three years. Even otherwise as per the admitted case of the plaintiff's/ DDA (as mentioned in the para no. 12 of the plaint), the entire accounts of the defendants were meticulously scrutinized and it was found that as on 25.04.2012 a sum of Rs. 38.76,357/- stood recoverable from the defendants. Even, if we assume the aforesaid date as last date of final occurrence of cause of action in terms of the agreement between the parties as alleged by the plaintiffs / DDA, the present suit filed by the plaintiffs/DDA on 28.05.2015 is also beyond the period of limitation being filed after three years. Also, if limitation period has to be counted from the date of Issuance of final letter of the plaintiffs, then as stated earlier there shall be no start of limitation per