Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(UK) 1122

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Siddhartha Sah, J
STATE OF U.P. THROUGH SEPERINTENDING ENGINEER – Appellant
Versus
VIJAY PAL SINGH – Respondent
FA 27 / 2010

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: I.D. Paliwal
For the Respondents: Seema Sah

A suit on behalf of a state government requires valid authorization. Without it, the extended limitation period for government suits does not apply; the ordinary three-year limitation period applies.

Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Sections 96 and Order XLI Rule 31 - Limitation Act, 1963 - Articles 112 and 113 - Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Sections 65 and 66 - Authority to institute suit on behalf of State - Requirement of express authorization - Suit instituted by Superintending Engineer without valid authorization cannot be treated as suit by Government - Benefit of 30-year limitation under Article 112 not available - Limitation period of 3 years under Article 113 applies - Suit filed beyond limitation period is time-barred - Burden of proof for shortage of materials - Plaintiff failed to establish negligence of defendant - No direct evidence of misappropriation - Other officials also responsible - Inconsistency in shortage amounts casts doubt - Secondary evidence inadmissible unless foundational requirements satisfied.

(B) Appeal - Scope - Appellate court will not interfere with findings of fact unless perverse or illegal - Trial court's appreciation of evidence and reasoning upheld.

Facts of the case:
The appellant, a state government department, filed a suit for recovery of Rs.7,98,309.35/- against the respondent, a storekeeper, alleging shortage of materials during his suspension period following his arrest. The trial court dismissed the suit, holding that there was no valid authorization to sue, the suit was barred by limitation, and the appellant failed to prove the respondent's liability. The appellant appealed.

Findings of Court:
The High Court upheld the trial court's findings. On authority to sue, the appellant failed to produce valid authorization; a letter of permission was not properly admitted as secondary evidence. Therefore, the suit could not be treated as filed by the State, and the limitation period of 30 years under Article 112 did not apply; the three-year period under Article 113 applied, making the suit time-barred. On merits, the appellant did not establish that the respondent was solely responsible for the shortage; other officials shared responsibility, and the shortage was detected only later. The appeal was dismissed.

Issues: (1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the amount; (2) Whether the Superintending Engineer had authority to institute suit; (3) Whether the suit is barred by limitation.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that a suit instituted on behalf of the State must be by a person duly authorized by the Government. Absent such authorization, the suit is not a government suit and the extended limitation under Article 112 is not available. The right to sue accrued in 1985; suit filed in 1994 is beyond three years under Article 113 and thus barred. On merits, the appellant failed to prove that the shortage was due to the respondent's negligence, especially when other officials had control during his absence. Result : Appeal dismissed.

Hon’ble Siddhartha Sah, J. (oral)

This first appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 10.12.2009 passed by Civil Judge (S.D.) Haridwar in Original Suit No.119 of 1994, ‘State of U.P. through Superintending Engineer vs. Sri Vijay Pal Singh and others’, by means of which the suit instituted by the plaintiff/appellant against the defendants/respondents for recovery of an amount of Rs. 7,98,309.35/- along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum, has been dismissed.

2. The aforesaid suit was instituted with the pleadings that the Purvi Ganga Nahar Nirman Mandal, Haridwar is a department of the State of Uttar Pradesh and falls under the Irrigation Department of the State of U.P. The Superintending Engineer, Purvi Ganga Nahar Nirman Mandal, Haridwar, is duly authorized to institute the suit on behalf of the plaintiff/appellant. Defendant No. 1 was working on the post of Storekeeper in Purvi Ganga Nahar Nirman Khand-3, Haridwar, and had been in service since 31.1.1981. He was arrested by the Police Department of Muzaffarnagar on 28.08.82 on certain charges and was later released on bail on 25.10.82 pursuant to an order of the Hon’ble High Court.

3. Due to his arrest and detention during the period from 28.08.82 to 25.10.82, Defendant No. 1 was placed under suspension vide office memorandum dated 05.11.82 issued by the Superintending Engineer, Purvi Ganga Nahar Nirman Mandal, Haridwar. All materials stored in Purvi Ganga Nahar Khand-3, Haridwar were under the custody and charge of Defendant No. 1, who was responsible for issuing the same in accordance with the rules after making proper entries in the records.

4. During the period of suspension of Defendant No. 1, i.e., from November 1982 to May 1984, partial charge of the store was handed over to Shri H.K. Goyal, Assistant Store Superintendent. After taking over the charge, a shortage of store materials amounting to Rs. 28.11 lakhs was detected. Upon further scrutiny of records, the shortage remained of Rs. 22.75 lakhs.

5. Defendant No. 1 was called upon to submit his explanation, which he furnished in March 1986. Upon detailed examination of the records, the shortage was further assessed at Rs. 7,98,309.35/-, as detailed in Annexure No. 1 appended to the plaint.

6. The said shortage of Rs. 7,98,309.35/- is attributable to Defendant No. 1, who is liable to compensate the same. The matter was also reported to the concerned police station. Despite repeated demands, Defendant No. 1 failed to make good the loss and continued to delay the matter, therefore, the necessity to institute the suit.

7. Accordingly, the suit was filed for recovery of Rs. 7,98,309.35/- along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum, pendente lite, and litigation expenses in the Court of Civil Judge Haridwar, where it was registered as Original Suit No. 119 of 1994, State of U.P. Vs. Shri Vijay Pal Singh & Ors.

8. The defendants contested the suit by filing their written statement, denying the averments made in the plaint. In the additional pleas it was, inter alia, pleaded that the suit was instituted without any cause of action and with a view to hide the irresponsible act and negligence. It was further contended that the suit had not been instituted by a competent person and that the Superintending Engineer had no authority in law to institute the suit on behalf of the State of Uttar Pradesh. It was also denied that Defendant No. 1 had misappropriated or alienated any store material or derived any illegal benefit therefrom. The liability to pay the alleged amount was specifically disputed, and it was contended that the plaintiff is not entitled to recover any amount from the defendants.

9. The defendants, however, admitted that Defendant No. 1 was working as a Storekeeper since August 1982 and that he was arrested by the police and later released on bail. It was further admitted that upon his return after release, Defendant No. 1 was placed under suspension.

10. It was contended that during the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(UK) 1122

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHANDSiddhartha Sah, JSTATE OF U.P. THROUGH SEPERINTENDING ENGINEER – AppellantVersusVIJAY PAL SINGH – RespondentFA 27 / 2010

A suit on behalf of a state government requires valid authorization. Without it, the extended limitation period for government suits does not apply; the ordinary three-year limitation period applies.

Cases Referred (1)

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
Siddhartha Sah, J
STATE OF U.P. THROUGH SEPERINTENDING ENGINEER – Appellant
Versus
VIJAY PAL SINGH – Respondent
FA 27 / 2010