The limitation period for filing a suit starts to run from the date of the cause of action and that the period of notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure runs concurrently with the general limitation period.

A.S.Nehra, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 17.5.1984 passed by the District Judge, Rohtak, by which the appeal filed by the plaintiff-appellant was dismissed and the judgment and decree dated 24.1.1984 passed by the trial Court (dismissing the plaintiff-appellants suit for declaration) was upheld.

2. The plaintiff-appellant joined the service as Steno-Typist in the office of the Executive Engineer, Electrical Division, in the year 1977. He was appointed on ad hoc basis and the letter of appointment was issued by the Superintending Engineer. The services of the plaintiff-appellant were terminated by the Executive Engineer on 17.7.1979. The plaintiff-appellant has challenged the order of dismissal, stating that the order is void, illegal, inoperative and without jurisdiction.

3. The defendant-respondents have admitted the plaintiff-appellants appointment as a Steno-Typist, but they have asserted that he was appointed on ad hoc basis and his services were liable to be terminated at any time without any notice. It was further pleaded that the order of termination passed by the Executive Engineer was legal and valid. Preliminary objection has also been taken that the suit filed by the plaintiff-appellant is barred by limitation and that, since the plaintiff-appellant was appointed on ad hoc basis, therefore, he has no right to the post.

4. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:-

(1) Whether the order dated 17.7.1979 is illegal, void and inoperative, as alleged in the plaint ?

(2) Whether the suit is time-barred ?

(3) Whether the plaintiff was appointed temporarily ? If so, to what effect ?

(4) Whether the Civil Court has no jurisdiction ?

(5) Relief.

5. The trial Court decided issue Nos. 1, 2 and 3 in favour of the defendants-respondents and against the plaintiff-appellant Findings on issue No. 4 was given in favour of the plaintiff-appellant and the suit filed by him was dismissed by the trial Court.

6. The learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. D.N. Tanwar, has submitted that the finding of the learned lower Courts that the suit of the plaintiff was barred by law of limitation, is not correct. According to his submission, the limitation would be 3 years and 2 months, because he has served notice under Section 80, Code of Civil Procedure, on the defendants-respondents on 26.6.1982. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the defendants-respondents, Mr. J.V. Yadav, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, has argued that once the limitation starts to run under Section 9 of the Limitation Act, 1963, both the main limitation and the period of notice would run together, if it is covered within that period.

7. Section 9 of the Limitation Act embodies the principle that once the time for filing suit or application starts running, it will continue to run till it has exhausted the full prescribed period. Sub-section (2) of Section 15 of the Limitation Act deals with the exclusion of period of statutory notices, such as those under Section 80, Code of Civil Procedure. The proper way to look after the matters is to take complete two months next after delivery of service of the notice. It is the admitted position that in this case the suit was filed on 6.9.1982 and the services of the plaintiff-appellant were terminated on 17.7.1979. So, the three years period from 17.7.1979 will come to 16.7.1982. The notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure was served on 26.6.1982 which is admitted. Therefore, from 17.7.1979, we have to minus 20 days in two months, because both the general limitation and the period of service of notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure started to run together. So, the plaintiff-appellant can get benefit of only 40 days under Section 15(2) of the Limitation Act, which, if added to 17.7.1982, comes to 26.8.1982 by which date the suit should have been filed. The suit in the present case was filed on 6.9.1982.

8. The learn