RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK, J. - (1.) THE present one is an appeal filed on behalf of the defendant against the impugned concurrent findings recorded by the learned courts below in a suit for recovery, which was decreed by both the courts below qua recovery of outstanding amount on account of arrears of telephone bills. Brief facts of the case are that Telephone No. SMA 21057 was installed in the premises of appellant by the Department of Telecommunication on behalf of Union of India. Later on, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited ('BSNL' for short) came into existence w.e.f. 1.10.2000. However, the defendant -appellant has already been found in arrears of bills for his above -said telephone connection w.e.f. 21.8.1998 to 21.2.1999, amounting to Rs.78,623/ -. Thus, the amount became due to the Department of Telecommunication, Union of India before coming into being BSNL. But the recovery suit came to be filed by the Union of India, Ministry of Telecommunication through its General Manager, Telecom, BSNL, on 1.10.2003. Having been served, defendant -appellant appeared before the learned trial Court and filed his written statement. Averments taken by the plaintiffs were denied alleging non -joinder of necessary parties, issue of limitation as well as of jurisdiction.
(2.) ON completion of pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the learned trial Court: - 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recovery of Rs.78623/ - from the defendant. 2. If issue No.1 is decided in favour of the plaintiff, whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest on this amount. If so, at what rate of interest? OPP. 3. Whether the suit is bad for non -joinder of necessary parties? OPD. 4. Whether the suit is time barred? OPD. 5. Whether this court has no jurisdiction to try the present suit? OPD. 6. Relief." To substantiate their respective stands taken, both the parties led their documentary as well as oral evidence. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the evidence brought on record, the learned trial Court decreed the suit for recovery of Rs.78,623/ - alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till realisation of the decretal amount, vide judgment and decree dated 3.10.2006. The defendant -appellant filed the appeal before the learned lower appellate court and the same came to be dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Patiala, vide judgment and decree dated 27.2.2009. Hence this appeal.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant raised only one argument that the suit was barred by limitation. She submits that BSNL being a company incorporated under the Companies Act, the limitation for filing a suit for recovery was three years and since the suit was admittedly filed beyond three years, it was barred by limitation. She next contended that period of 30 years as provided under Article 112 of the Limitation Act, will not apply in the present case. Since the learned courts below have failed to appreciate the legal position in the correct perspective, the impugned judgments and decrees were liable to be set aside. She relies upon a judgment of this Court in Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. v. Pawan Kumar Gupta, 2007(4) RCR (Civil) 10 and prays for setting aside the impugned judgments and decrees by allowing the present appeal.;