Satyabir @ Satbir Singh vs Capt. Abhimanyu and Others

L.N. Mittal, J.—Plaintiff Satyabir @ Satbir Singh has filed this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugning order dated 13.11.2009 Annexure P/3 passed by the trial court and judgment dated 27.7.2011 Annexure P/5 passed by the lower appellate court. Plaintiff-petitioner has filed suit against respondents/defendants vide plaint Annexure P/1 alleging that the plaintiff had purchased a jeep by taking loan from defendants no. 1 to 5 by way of hire purchase agreement. However, defendant nos. 1 to 5 along with their musclemen forcibly seized the said jeep from the plaintiff on 24.3.2000. The plaintiff has inter alia sought damages for monetary loss caused to the plaintiff due to seizure of the jeep and also claimed mandatory injunction directing the defendants to deliver back the jeep as well as deliver back cheque book and other blank and printed papers to the plaintiff. Along with plaint, the plaintiff moved application Annexure P/2 u/s 151 of the CPC (in short, CPC) for condonation of delay in filing the suit.

Learned trial court vide order Annexure P/3 has dismissed the plaintiff''s application Annexure P/2 and consequently, dismissed the suit as time barred. Appeal against the said order preferred by the plaintiff has been dismissed by learned lower appellate court vide judgment Annexure P/5. Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiff has filed this revision petition to challenge judgments of both the courts below.

I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the case file.

The plaintiff alleged in the application Annexure P/2 that he had earlier made criminal complaint on 9.6.2000 before Judicial Magistrate and the said complaint was quashed by this Court on 30.7.2007 and therefore, delay, if any, in filing the suit be condoned by excluding aforesaid period from 9.6.2000 till 30.7.2007.

Counsel for the petitioner, however, fairly conceded that section 14 of the Limitation Act is not applicable to exclude the period spent in prosecuting aforesaid criminal complaint because section 14 of the Limitation Act applies to earlier civil proceedings and not to criminal proceedings.

Counsel for the petitioner, however, contended that there is continuing cause of action in favour of the plaintiff as the jeep continues to be detained by the defendants and therefore, the suit is within limitation. Reliance in support of this contention has been placed on judgment of Hon''ble Supreme Court in Dhian Singh Sobha Singh and Another Vs. The Union of India (UOI),

On the other hand, counsel for the contesting respondents contended that for relief of declaration, limitation period is 3 years according to Article 58 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act whereas for relief of possession of jeep i.e. specific moveable property also, limitation period is 3 years according to Article 69 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act and therefore, the suit instituted on 23.8.2007 having been instituted after expiry of limitation period of three years from 24.3.2000 when the jeep was allegedly seized by defendants no. 1 to 5 along with others, is barred by limitation as rightly held by the courts below.

I have carefully considered the rival contentions. Judgment in the case of Dhian Singh Sobha Singh (supra) related to kind of relief to which the plaintiff was entitled to. It did not relate to the period of limitation for filing the suit. Consequently, the said judgment is not applicable to the issue of limitation to be adjudicated in the instant revision petition. On the contrary, according to Article 58 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, limitation period for suit for declaration is 3 years and the said period begins to run when the right to sue first accrued. The word ''first'' used in the said provision for commencement of the period of limitation is very significant. In the instant case, according to plaintiff''s own version, the right to sue for declaration first accrued to him on 24.3.2000 when the jeep was seized from his possession by defendants no. 1 to 5. Consequently, limitation period of 3 years for filing suit for declaration expired on 24.3.2003 whereas the suit was instituted on 23.8.2007 i.e. more than 4 years after the expiry of limitation period. Similarly, according to Article 69 of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, limitation period of three years for filing suit for specific moveable property begins to run when the property is wrongfully taken. In the instant case, the jeep was allegedly taken wrongfully by the defendants on 24.3.2000 and therefore, the limitation period of 3 years for seeking relief of mandatory injunction relating to the jeep also commenced on 24.3.2000 when the jeep was allegedly taken wrongfully by the defendants and therefore, limitation period of 3 years for filing suit for said relief also expired on 24.3.2003 i.e. more than 4 years prior to the filing of the suit. The suit has, therefore, been rightly held to be barred by limitation. Application Annexure P/2 filed u/s 151 CPC to condone delay in filing the suit is not maintainable as delay in filing the suit cannot be condoned under any provision. On the other hand, once the limitation period begins to run, it does not cease to run. Consequently, in the instant case, once the limitation period began to run on 24.3.2000 for all the reliefs claimed in the suit, it cannot be said that due to alleged continuing cause of action, the limitation period did not expire till the filing of the suit. On the other hand, there was limitation period of three years which began to run on 24.3.2000 and therefore, the suit filed on 23.8.2007 is hopelessly barred by limitation as rightly held by the courts below. For the reasons aforesaid, I find no perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error in impugned judgments of the courts below so as to call for interference by this Court in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The revision petition is completely meritless and is accordingly dismissed.