Back
JHARKHAND HIGH COURT
Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.
Smt. Sharda Devi —Appellant
versus
Central Coalfields Limited, Ranchi
and Ors. —Respondents
S.A. No.15 of 2012
Decided on 29.11.2021
Limitation Act, 1963—Article 18—Payment—Bar of limitation—Limitation is not a purely question of law, but a question and fact of law—Under Article 18 of Limitation Act for price of work done by plaintiff for defendants at his request, where no time has been fixed for payment three years when work is done—On technical grounds State should not deny to its citizens just dues—Payment had not been made due to non-allotment of fund at that time—Wife of plaintiff cannot be imputed with knowledge about amount due in department against work done by her late husband—It is logical and understandable that only after she could have come to know about due with government department, she would have collected necessary documents and filed money suit for amount due—Suit was not barred by limitation and plaintiff is entitled to decretal amount with 12% interest. (Paras 10 and 11)
Result: Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT
Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J.—This appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree passed by the Principal District Judge, Bokaro whereby and whereunder, the judgment and decree passed in favour of the plaintiff by Sub-Judge-I, Bemo at Tenughat in Money Suit No. 03/2007 was reversed.
2. The appeal has been admitted on the following substantial question of law:
Whether the learned lower appellate court has committed serious error in reversing the judgment and decree of learned trial court by misapplying the principle of Limitation Act?
3. The case of the plaintiff-appellant is that her husband completed work allocated to him vide Tender No. BKO/C/T/12/1999-2000/687-96 dated 20.03.2000, BKO/C/T/22/1997-98 dated 12.03.1998 and BKO/C/T/22/1999-2000/687-96 dated 29.03.2000. Against these completed works on request for payment an enquiry committee was constituted which submitted report to Defendant No. 2 that the work had been done by the husband of the plaintiff but no action was taken due to non-availability of fund at that time. The husband of the plaintiff died on 06.12.2002 without receiving the payment against the work completed by him. It was against this backdrop that for the outstanding payment on 14.11.2006 a legal notice was given on behalf of the plaintiff to Defendant No. 3 which remained unanswered and consequently, the suit was filed for a decree of Rs.1,09,207/- along with interest at the rate of 12% from the date of competition of work till its realization.
4. In pursuance to the notice issued, a joint written statement has been filed on behalf of the defendant contesting the claim of the plaintiff/appellant. It has been, inter alia, pleaded on behalf of the defendants that vide Tender No. BKO/C/T/22/1999-2000/687-96 dated 29.03.2000 the work was allocated but it had not been completed. It is further averred that the defendants had neither issued any work order nor given any contract for the work in question and, therefore, the payment against it cannot be made. With regard to the enquiry report it is submitted that there is no such report available in the office. On the basis of the pleading made by the parties, the following main issues were framed:
III. Is the suit barred by law of limitation?
IV. Is the suit hit by Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act?
VII. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the decree of Rs.1,09,207/- with interest at the rate of 12% from the date of completion of work till realization of the said amount?
VIII. Whether the work vide Tender No. BKO/C/T/22/1999-2000/687-96 dated 29.3.2000 was done or not?
5. On Issue No. VII and VIII the trial court returned a finding of fact that work vide BKO/C/T/22/1999-2000 dated 29.03.2000 was done by the husband of the plaintiff and plaintiff is entitled for the decree of Rs.1,09.207/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of completion of work till realization of the said amount.
With regard to Issue No. III and IV, it was held by the trial court that these issues were not pressed at the time of argument by the parties nor any evidence has been led in this regard by the parties concerned. So these issued are decided accordingly.
6. Learned appellate court in First Appeal reversed the judgment and decree mainly on the ground of limitation and held that it is settled principle of law that the limitation for a suit for the price of work done by the plaintiff for the defendant at his request where no time has been fixed for payment as is the case in the suit in question is for three years as per Article 18 of the Schedule of Limitation Act, 1963. The money became due on 14.04.2000 so the plaintiff must have filed the suit within three years from 14.04.2000. The learned court below has further observed that this is not a case of continuing breach as envisaged under Section 22 of the Limitation Act. While the appellate court admitted that not responding to the notice can be termed acknowledgment in terms of Section 18
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the suit for recovery must be filed within the limitation period specified under Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963, and failure to mentio....
Unilateral invoice without acknowledgment does not extend limitation for contract payment claims; warranty period does not postpone cause of action.
Acknowledgments made after limitation expiry do not revive time-barred claims under the Limitation Act.
The issue of limitation is a mixed question of fact and law and cannot be determined without trial; factual circumstances must be examined to ascertain whether the suit is barred by limitation.
Article 113 of the Limitation Act reads as Any suit for which no period of limitation is provided elsewhere in the Schedule, the period of limitation is three years and the time begins to run when th....
A breach of contract claim must be filed within three years from the breach date, as specified under Article 55 of the Limitation Act, not from the date when damages can be calculated.
The court established that the starting point for limitation under the Limitation Act depends on when the right to sue accrues, not merely on the date of breach or completion of work.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
