The court held that a suit for recovery filed after the limitation period is barred, emphasizing that reminders or RTI applications do not extend the limitation period.

1. This judgment shall decide the instant civil revision petition filed by the petitioner under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure , 19081 assailing the impugned order dated 27.08.2022 and consequential order dated 15.11.2022 passed by the learned District Judge (Commercial), Rohini Courts2, New Delhi, in CS(Comm) No. 379/2020 titled as “Chander Prabha vs. Delhi Technological University” wherein the petitioner’s application under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the CPC read with Section 3 of the Limitation Act , 1963 was dismissed.

1 CPC 2 Trial Court

2. The petitioner herein is the Delhi Technological University3, constituted under the Delhi Technological University Act4, 2009. The financial powers of the University are exercised by the Finance Committee, which is regulated by the Board of Management under Section 23 of the DTU Act and also the financial rules framed by the Government of India are followed by the University from time to time whilst dealing with contracts and other financial matters.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND:

3. The respondent/plaintiff in the present lis filed a Civil Suit (Comm) bearing No. 379/2020 titled as “Chander Prabha V. Delhi Technological University” for the recovery of Rs. 11,43,280/- before the Rohini Court, New Delhi on 15.10.2020 in respect of six work orders from 2012-2013, which were purportedly issued by the Project and Estate Officer. It was contended by the petitioner/defendant that each of the work orders were to be completed in a stipulated period of 15 days, however, the work orders were not completed satisfactorily.

The claim by the respondent/plaintiff before the learned Trial Court was that the work orders were completed but the alleged amount sanctioned to them on 28.02.2012 was not released by the petitioner/defendant. The details of the six work orders are reproduced below: -

• S.

• No.

• Name of work Work Order No. & Date Amount of Work Order

1. White wash and Water Proofing in Type-I, Flat no. 63 in DTU DTU/Engg.

Cell/Civil/2012-13/75 dated 13.08.2012 Rs. 1,46,931/- 3 University 4 DTU Act

2. Preparation of BPL in Room No. LW1TF4 in DTU DTU/Engg.

Cell/Composite/2012- 13/152 dated 16.10.2012 Rs. 95,682/-

3. Requirement of Power Points in Biometric Lab in IT Dept. In DTU DTU/Engg.

Cell/Elect./2012-13/80 dated 08.11.2012 Rs. 1,65,571/-

4. Fixing of remaining dismantles chairs in Convocation Hall in DTU DTU/Engg.

Cell/Gen/2012-13/128 dated 18.01.2013 Rs. 1,52,380/-

5. Supply & fixing of AL Partition in Convocation Hall in DTU DTU/Engg.

Cell/Civil/2012-13/175 dated 19.02.2013 Rs. 1,06,298/-

6. Urgent repair, AL Partition & other works in room no.

LW4TF4 in DTU DTU/Engg.

Cell/Civil/2012-13/177 dated 19.02.2013 Rs. 1,19,317/-

4. It was the case of the respondent/plaintiff that she submitted the bills dated 21.05.2013, 08.08.2013, 21.05.2013 and 21.05.2013 but no monies for the same were released by the petitioner/defendant as they contended that the six work orders were obtained by fraud. It was stated that the petitioner/defendant discovered that Sh. Ratan Singh, Assistant Engineer (Electrical) who was assigned with the task of awarding the work order to the respondent, was the husband of the respondent. The respondent in collusion with the Assistant Engineer (Electrical) secured the work orders by falsifying details of M/s Watts Consultancy and played fraud upon the petitioner/defendant; and when such facts came to light, the services of Sh. Ratan Singh were terminated w.e.f. 13.11.2013. The respondent/plaintiff issued a letter dated 19.02.2014 seeking release of the payment against the work orders, however the same was not replied by the petitioner.

5. It appears that the respondent/plaintiff sent demand letters dated 07.08.2017, 15.06.2018 and 20.07.2018, which were never replied by the petitioner/defendant. It is the case of the respondent/plaintiff that she filed an RTI Application dated 21.07.2018 seeking the status of the action taken on the letter dated 15.06.2018,