In the case of a continuing breach of contract or a continuing tort, a fresh period of limitation begins to run at every moment of the time during which the breach or tort continues.

R.L.Anand, J.

1. Garib Dass son of Lehna Mal had filed this R.S.A. and it has been directed against the judgment and decree dated 14.1.1980 passed by the Additional District Judge, Jalandhar who affirmed the judgment and decree dated 26.9.1979 passed by the Sr. Sub Judge, Jalandhar, who dismissed the appeal of the plaintiff- appellant.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction on 24.1.1978, restraining the defendants from demolishing his kothas or from disturbing his possession over the premises measuring 7 marlas 35 sq. ft. bearing Khasra No. 7971, Khewat No. 75/83 s per jamabandi for the year 1969-70, situated at Mandi Road, near Ghumaran Masjid, Jalandhar City, shown red in the plan and fully described in the head note of the plaint and the case of the plaintiff was that after his migration to India from Pakistan in the year 1948 subsequent to the partition of the country, he settled in the premises in question fully described in the head note of the plaint. The site was in the form of a Chhappar belonging to Muslim evacuees. He levelled the same and constructed rooms for his residence, cattle-shed and running his business by spending a huge amount. He became owner thereof by efflux of time by virtue of his continuous possession for the last about 30 years. He also constructed a wooden Stall (khoka) measuring 2-1/2 x 2 just in front of the premises in dispute for carrying on his business and the Municipal Committee had been charging Teh-Bazari with regard thereto for about 22 years. That facility was later on withdrawn and that wooden stall was demolished in the year 1972 but he continued to be in possession of the premises in question without any hindrance. After the Municipal Committee ordered the demolition of the kothas in question on 2.1.1973, without any right or title, he brought a suit challenging that order of the Municipal Committee, but his suit was dismissed by the trial Court on some technical error on 16.11.1976. He filed an appeal against the judgment and decree of the trial Court and his suit was allowed to be withdrawn with permission to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action vide order dated 11.1.1978, passed by the Addl. Distt. Judge, Jalandhar. Thereafter, he instituted the present suit seeking a decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from demolishing his kothas or disturb his , possession over the premises in dispute. The plaintiff alleged that the functionaries of the defendant No. 1 had started saying that the land in dispute had been purchased by them. Thus, they threatened to demolish his kothas in question in order to dispossess him forcibly.

3. Notice of the suit was given to the defendants, who contested the suit and, inter alia, pleaded that the suit is hopelessly barred by time; that the plaintiff was not allowed to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action and that the plaintiff is not in possession of the property.

4. The plaintiff filed a rejoinder to the written statement of the defendants in which he re-iterated the allegations made in the plaint by denying those in the written statement.

5. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the trial Court:-

"1. Whether the plaintiff is in possession of the premises in dispute for the last about 30 years continuously and is in adverse possession of the same and has become the owner of the premises? OPP.

2. Whether the suit is barred by limitation? OPD.

3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to injunction prayed for? OPP. 3-A. Whether the plaintiff had been permitted to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action. If not, so its effect? OPP.

4. Relief."

6. Issue No. 2 and 3-A were treated preliminary by the trial Court and vide the judgment and decree dated 26.9.1979, the trial Court held that the suit of the plaintiff was not within limitation and the suit was dismissed.

7. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the trial Court, t