The court held that a suit for recovery filed after the limitation period is barred, emphasizing that reminders or RTI requests 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, 1908 1 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. 380/2020 titled as “Mr. Chander Shekhar v. 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. 380/2020 titled as “Mr. Chander Shekhar v. Delhi Technological University” for the recovery of Rs. 11,48,324/- before the Rohini Court, New Delhi on 15.10.2020 in respect of five 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 21.02.2013 was not released by the petitioner/defendant. The details of the five work orders are reproduced below: -

• S.

• No.

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

1. Replacement & repairing of existing lighting fixtures, fans, DTU/Engg.

Cell/Civil/2012-13/89 Rs. 1,49,460/- 3 University 4 DTU Act switches and providing additional as per requirements etc. in E&C Dept. in DTU dated 07.12.2012

2. Renovation In Deptt.

Of Physics in room SB TF-13 in DTU DTU/Engg.

Cell/Comp/2012- 13/186(2) dated 18.01.2013 Rs.1,51,948/-

3. Floor Tiles and False Ceiling work in Deptt. Of Physics in room SB TF-13 DTU/Engg.

Cell/Comp./2012- 13/186(7) dated 18.01.2013 Rs.1,83,193/-

4. Supplying & fixing collar mic system in Expo Hall & Room No.307 in Admin. Block in DTU DTU/Engg.

Cell/Gen/2012- 13/137/564 dated 31.01.2013 Rs.1,40,060/-

5. Repair and dry cleaning of fixed chairs in Convocation Hall in DTU DTU/Engg.

Cell/Gen/2012-13/127 dated 19.02.2013 Rs.1,67,170/-

4. It was the case of the respondent/plaintiff that he submitted the bills dated 11.02.2013, 24.05.2013 and 14.08.2013 but no monies for the same were released by the petitioner/defendant as they contended that the five 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 father of the respondent. The respondent in collusion with the Assistant Engineer (Electrical) secured the work orders by falsifying details of M/s Cherub Webs 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.

5. It appears that the respondent/plaintiff sent demand letters dated 15.06.2018 and 21.07.2018, which were never replied by the petitioner/defendant. It is the case of the respondent/plaintiff that he filed an RTI application dated 21.07.2018 seeking the status of the action taken on the letter dated 15.06.2018, which was replied on 22.10.2018 wherein they stated that “the payment will be made only after scrutiny of bills”.

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE LEARNED TRIAL COURT AND THE IMPUGNED ORDERS:

6. On ins