IMPORTANT POINT
Limitation—Telephone Bill—Recovery of—BSNL being company is separate entity from Central Government—Limitation is three years for recovery of bill and not thirty years.

Permod Kohli, J.- This Regular Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 2.9.2006 passed by the District Judge, Bhiwani dismissing the appeal preferred by the present appellant against the judgment and decree dated 14.6.2005 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bhiwani.

2. The Appellant is a Company duly incorporated under Companies Act, 1956. The appellant filed a suit for recovery of Rs.25,296/- alongwith interest at the rate of 18% per annum, against the respondent allegedly on account of non-payment of the outstanding dues for the use of Telephone No.243788 held by the respondent as a subscriber. The amount is said to be due for the period 29.1.1992 till the disconnection on 16.3.1998. Admittedly when the telephone was installed and remained in operation till its disconnection, telephone services were being provided by the Telecommunication Department of Government of India. It is the case of the appellant that the Government of India on the basis of its policy decision established a Company under the provisions of Companies Act, 1956 and vide Memorandum dated 30.9.2000 transferred all the assets and liabilities of Department of Telecommunication Services to the Appellant-Company with effect from 1.10.2000. The Appellant, accordingly, on the basis of the fact that it acquired all the assets and liabilities of the Telecommunication Department of Government of India, filed the suit for recovery against the respondent being the amount payable for the use of the telephone earlier installed by the Telecommunication Department of Government of India.

3. The suit was resisted by the respondent on variety of grounds, besides challenging the competency of the appellants to seek recovery. The suit was also sought to be dismissed being barred by time. The trial court, on the basis of the pleadings of the parties, framed as many as eight issues. However, the suit was dismissed while deciding issue no.4 which reads as under:-

“(4) Whether the suit is time barred? OPD”

The trial court, though concluding that the amount is due and payable by the respondent, dismissed the suit as barred by time. According to the findings of the trial court, the period of limitation for filing such a suit by the Company is three years. The trial court also rejected the contention of the appellant that the period of limitation is 30 years under Article 112 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The appeal preferred by the appellant before the District Judge, Bhiwani also resulted in dismissal. The First Appellate Court concurred with the findings of the trial court on the question of limitation. Both the judgments of the courts below are assailed before this Court.

The main and only argument canvassed before me is that for the appellant being a Government Company, the period of limitation for seeking recovery will be governed by Article 112 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and not under any other Article. Article 112 of the Limitation Act, 1963 reads as under:-

THE SECHDULE

PERIODS OF LIMITATION

[See Sections 2(j) and 3]

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

“Description Period of Time from which

of Suit Limitation period begins to run

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

XXX XXX XXX

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

112.Any suit (except Thirty years When the period of

a suit before the Supreme limitation would begin

Court in the exercise to run under this Act

of its original jurisdiction) against a like suit by a

by or on behalf of the private person.

Central Government,

including the Government

of the State of Jammu &

Kashmir.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No doubt, under the afore