The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of Article 112 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and the differentiation between Central Government, State Government, and local authorities in relation to the extended period of limitation.

JUDGMENT :

Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J.

This appeal is directed against the judgement and decree passed by the learned District Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff- respondent has been decreed, while the counter-claim filed by the appellant- defendant has been dismissed.

2. The facts in brief may be noticed. The respondent herein filed a suit for recovery of Rs.6,17,599/- on account of loss suffered by the plaintiff due to breach of contract. The suit admittedly was instituted on 10.12.2004 and the agreement in question had been entered into on 28.6.1997 and the cause of action, if any, accrued to the plaintiff on 8.12.1997. A specific issue regarding limitation was framed to the following effect:-

?Whether suit is within time? OPP?

The learned trial court answered the issue in the following manner:-

?21. Submission of ld. Advocate appearing on behalf of plaintiff that suit is within time is also accepted for the reasons hereinafter mentioned. It is proved on record that written agreement Ex. PW 1/D was executed interse parties on dated 28.6.1997. It is also proved on record that HPFC is owned by Himachal Pradesh State Government. Court is of the view that any suit filed by State Forest Corporation owned by H.P. State Government is covered under Art.112 of the limitation Act. As per Art. 112 of the Limitation Act any suit (except a suit before the Supreme Court in the exercise of its original jurisdiction) by or on behalf of the Central government or any State Government including the Government of the State of Jammu & Kashmir, can be filed within thirty years when the period of limitation would begin to run. Present suit was filed on dated 10.12.2004. Hence it is held that present suit is governed under Art. 112 of the limitation Act 1963 because HPFC is owned by H.P. Government and any suit filed by Corporation owned by Government is governed by Art. 112 of Limitation Act 1963. Hence it is held that present suit is within time. Issue No. 10 is decided in favour of plaintiff.?

The suit was decreed. However, the counter claim preferred by the defendant-appellant was ordered to be dismissed. Hence, this appeal.

3. The question which arises for consideration is as to whether the suit and the counter claim can be held to be within time. Article 112 of Limitation Act, 1963 which has been relied upon by the learned trial court to decree the suit of the plaintiff- respondent reads as follows:

4. Therefore, the moot question required to be answered is as to whether recourse to Article 112 of the Limitation Act can be taken by the plaintiff- corporation to claim that the suit is within limitation. It cannot be disputed that a particular period of limitation for filing a suit by a Central government or State government or as the case may be has been provided for under Article 112. The State Government has been provided for in the statute of Limitation for a purpose and object. Prior to Article 112 of 1963 Act, the paramateria provision was Article 149. While noticing the purpose and object of Article 149 of the Limitation Act, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Nav Rattanmal and others vs. State of Rajasthan AIR 1961 SC 1704 held as follows:-

“10. First and foremost there is this feature that the Limitation Act, though a statute of repose and intended for quieting titles, and in that sense looks at the problem from the point of view of the defendant with a v