JUDGMENT :

Vikas Bahl, J. (Oral)

Challenge in the present Regular Second Appeal is to the judgment dated 30.08.1993 vide which the First Appellate Court had set aside the judgment and decree dated 11.05.1992 passed by the Sub Judge, Hird Class, Ferozepur vide which the suit filed by the plaintiff/present appellant had been decreed, solely on the ground that the suit filed by the plaintiff was beyond limitation.

2. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant has submitted that in the present case, the impugned order which was challenged in the suit filed by the plaintiff was admittedly passed on 10.07.1987 and vide the said impugned order, the plaintiff was awarded punishment of withholding of three annual increments with cumulative effect. It is submitted that since the suit was filed against the State of Punjab, thus, the plaintiff had served mandatory notice under Section 80 of CPC dated 13.06.1989 and the said notice has been duly exhibited as Ex.P2 and postal receipts regarding the same have been exhibited as Ex.P3 and Ex.P4 and acknowledgments have also been exhibited as Ex.P5. It is submitted that specific averments with respect to notice having been sent to the respondents have been made in para 5 of the plaint, which fact has not been denied in the corresponding para 5 of the written statement but has rather been admitted. It is argued that the suit was within limitation as two months period with respect to notice under Section 80 CPC was required to be excluded as per Section 15(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963 and also as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Disha Constructions and others Vs. State of Goa and another., reported as 2012(1) SCC 690 as it is not disputed that the suit was filed on 18.07.1990 and same was registered on 19.07.1990.

3. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant has further submitted that in the present case, no objection with respect to limitation was taken in the written statement and thus, no issue was framed on the said aspect. It is further submitted that the trial Court had decided all the three issues in favour of the present appellant and the First Appellate Court, without deciding the said three issues, had solely on the point of limitation, which was never raised as a defence, allowed the appeal filed by the State of Punjab which is against law and deserves to be set aside.

4. Learned State Counsel, on the other hand, has opposed the present Regular Second Appeal and has submitted that the said judgment of the First Appellate Court is in accordance with law. It is submitted that in the present case, the impugned order had been passed on 10.07.1987 vide which punishment of withholding of three annual increments with cumulative effect had been awarded to the plaintiff/present appellant and it cannot be said that withholding of increments gives a continuing cause of action which can be challenged at any time. It is submitted that the First Appellate Court had rightly observed that the cause of action had arisen on 10.07.1987 when the impugned order was passed and thus, filing of the suit on 18.07.1990 was barred by eight days and had rightly dismissed the suit of plaintiff.

5. This Court has heard learned counsel for the parties and has perused the paper book and has also taken into consideration the plaint, written statement and the other admitted documents which are a part of the record of the trial Court and have been duly exhibited [which have been produced during the course of arguments and have been taken on record as Mark 'A' (collectively) and Mark 'B' (collectively)] and is of the opinion that the judgment of the First Appellate Court is illegal, against settled law and deserves to be set aside and the judgment of the trial Court dated 11.05.1992 is in accordance with law, deserves to be upheld for the reasons stated hereinafter.

6. It is not in dispute that the appellant-plaintiff, who was working as a Conductor in Punjab Roadways, Ferozepur Depot, had filed a suit for declar