M.M.Kumar, J - (1.) The only question which requires determination in the revision petition filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is whether the suit filed by the petitioner was within the period of limitation prescribed by Article 113 of the Limitation Act, 1962.
(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 1,000/- against respondent No. 1. It was averred in the plaint that the petitioner was a Member of New Pucca Arhtia Association, Bareta (or brevity, NPAA), The NPAA entered into an agreement with the Food Corporation of India, Respondent No. 1 to act as its agent. It was further alleged that the NPAA deposited a security amount of Rs. 3,000/- with respondent No. 1 in pursuance of contract of agency for the year 1970-71 and respondent No. 1 after the settlement of financial accounts for that year failed to repay the amount of the security due of the petitioner alongwith respondents Nos. 3 and 4. The NPAA having been dissolved on 24-9-1970 or 24-10-1970. the petitioner claimed his share of Rs. 1,000/- alleging that the afore-mentioned amount of Rs.1,000/- has neither been refunded by respondent No. 1 nor by respondents No. 2 and 3 who were the President and Manager respectively o the dissolved Association.
(3.) The suit of the petitioner was decreed by the Sub-Judge, IInd Class, Mansa on 17.3.1975. The Judgment and decree passed by the Sub-Judge. IInd Class was challenged before the Additional District Judge, Bathinda. The Learned Additional District Judge vide his order dated 13.10.1978 remanded back the case by framing two additional issues. One of the issue was as to whether the suit was time barred. On remand the learned Sub Judge, 1st Class, Mansa vide his order dated 16.1.1979 held that the suit was time barred.;