Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. N.K. Manchanda, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. Ranjit Singh Kalra, Advocate

Based on the provided legal document, the key points relevant to the issue of limitation in the recovery suit are as follows:

1. The limitation period for initiating a suit for recovery is counted from the date when the extent of the loss is determined through an inquiry, not from the issuance of the charge-sheet or initial complaint (!) .

2. In this case, although the charge-sheet was issued in December 2017, the quantification of losses was finalized only after an inquiry and an order dated 02.09.2020. Therefore, the limitation period begins from this date, not from the charge-sheet issuance (!) .

3. The suit was filed within the limitation period, as it was initiated on 31.08.2023, which is within five years from the date of the final order determining the loss (!) .

4. When considering application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the plaint on the ground of limitation, only the averments made in the plaint are relevant. The court does not examine evidence or merits at this stage; it only assesses whether the plaint itself discloses that the suit is barred by law (!) (!) .

5. The court emphasized that limitation is a mixed question of law and fact, but at the stage of rejection under Order 7 Rule 11, the focus remains solely on the statements in the plaint, without delving into evidence or defence (!) .

6. The court dismissed the petition challenging the maintainability of the suit on the ground of limitation, holding that the suit was filed within the permissible period from the date of the final order quantifying the loss (!) .

In summary, the court clarified that the limitation clock begins from the date when the loss is finally quantified, and only the allegations in the plaint are relevant for determining whether the suit is barred by limitation at this stage.

JUDGMENT :

Nidhi Gupta, J.

Present petition has been filed by the defendant against the order dated 24.03.2025 (Annexure P4) whereby application (Annexure P1) filed by the petitioner under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for rejection of plaint, has been dismissed by the learned trial Court.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent/plaintiff Corporation had filed a suit against the petitioner for recovery of Rs.3,34,576/- based on alleged losses caused to the plaintiff during wheat procurement in the crop year 2017-18. It is submitted that for the said alleged losses, charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner in December, 2017; however, the suit for recovery was filed almost six years thereafter on 31.08.2023. It is contended that accordingly, suit of the plaintiff was barred by limitation; and therefore, deserved to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC on ground of limitation. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in 'C.S. Ramaswamy Vs. V.K. Senthil & Others' Law Finder Doc ID # 2042293; and judgment of this Court in 'Bank of Baroda Vs. Shri A.K. Sharma & Others' Law Finder Doc ID # 222405 wherein it has been held that limitation will apply from date of knowledge of fraud.

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Corporation opposes the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner and submits that although charge-sheet was issued on 30.12.2017 about the embezzlement and theft and losses caused by the defendant to the plaintiff, however, the exact extent of losses could only be determined by the plaintiff after detailed departmental inquiry. It is submitted that extent of losses was determined only vide order dated 2.9.2020; and therefore, limitation would apply from said date; and the suit was filed within limitation on 31.08.2023.

4. No other argument is made on behalf of the parties.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file in great detail.

6. I find no merit in the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner. Record reveals that the petitioner was appointed as Clerk-cum-Typist in the respondent-Corporation on 03.01.1995. Shortage of wheat crop was detected for the crop year 2017-18. Vide order dated 17.06.2017, a committee of 4 persons was constituted by the Manager of the respondent-Corporation to inquire into the said shortage pursuant to which, charge-sheet dated 30.12.2017 was issued to the petitioner. To quantify the losses caused to the respondent/plaintiff Corporation, an inquiry was conducted in the matter by retired Additional District and Sessions Judge in respect of which report dated 25.04.2019 was received. After this, considering the principles of natural justice, show cause notice was given to the defendant on 26.06.2019. The defendant had submitted his reply to the said show cause notice, pointing out that as per chargesheet and inquiry report an amount of Rs.4,03,059/- was to be recovered from the defendant; whereas amount of Rs.68,483/- had already been received by the Department from the sale of damaged wheat which amount should not be recovered from the defendant. After considering this reply of the defendant, final Office Order dated 03.01.2020 for recovery of Rs.3,34,576/- was passed. Against this Office Order dated 3.1.2020, the defendant had filed Appeal, which was rejected by the Appellate Authority i.e. Board of Directors vide order dated 02.09.2020; whereafter, the present suit came to be filed on 31.08.2023.Clearly, therefore, limitation would count from passing of order dated 02.09.2020; and present suit was within limitation.

7. The suit (Annexure P1) was filed by the respon