* HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ R.S.A. NO.78 OF 2005
Decided on : 21st February, 2013
LEELA NAND ...... Appellant
Through: Mr.Sandeep Bhalla, Adv.
Versus
INDIAN AIRLINES CORPN. LTD. & ANR. ...... Respondents
Through: Mr. Sanjay Gupta, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI
V.K. SHALI, J. (ORAL)
1. This is a regular second appeal filed by the appellant against the concurrent finding of the Courts below dismissing the suit of the appellant for declaring his date of birth as 4.6.1941 and on the basis of the same grant him consequential benefits. The matter was contested by the respondents.
2. One of the issues which was framed by the trial court was with regard to the maintainability of the suit on the ground of suit being barred by limitation.
R.S.A. No.78/2005 Page 1 of 4
3. The trial court as well as the appellate Court came to a finding that the suit for declaration with regard to the change of the date of birth was barred by limitation.
4. The learned counsel for the appellant has sought to urge before this Court that the substantial question of law arises from the regular second appeal with regard to the date from which the period of limitation of 3 years in respect of a suit has to be reckoned. It has been urged by the learned counsel that a cause of action may accrue to the parties within a month and every succeeding accrual of cause of action would give a right to the appellant to sue or to any party. It has been contended that in the instant case, a letter Ex.PW1/5 was issued by the respondent no.1 rejecting his prayer for change of the date of birth and therefore, it is urged that this was the first occasion where the respondent no.1 declared unequivocal intention not to change the date of birth of the appellant, therefore, the right to sue accrue to him from that particular date and if the period of limitation is calculated from the said date of letter i.e. 15.2.85, then the suit is within limitation. R.S.A. No.78/2005 Page 2 of 4
5. I do not agree with the submissions made by the learned counsel that the substantial question of law is arising from the present appeal or even with the proposition which is sought to be formulated and urged before this Court that the cause of action in the instant case may accrue more than once and it is only when unequivocal intention is disclosed by the respondent no.1 that he could file a suit.
6. It may be pertinent here to refer to the averments made by the appellant in para 23 of the amended plaint (trial court record) which is on the same lines, which reads as under:-
"That the cause of accrual in favour of the petitioner/plaintiff on 15.3.1979, on 1.12.1981, 09.6.1983, 21.8.1984 and again on 10.2.1992 and lastly on 30.6.1995"
7. The aforesaid paragraph would clearly show that it is his own case that the cause of action accrued in favour of the appellant/plaintiff for the first time on 15.3.1979. If this averment made by the appellant in his plaint is within the period of limitation, which is to be reckoned from 16.3.1979 and in terms of Article 58/113, the period of limitation to seek declaration being three years will be R.S.A. No.78/2005 Page 3 of 4 reckoned from 16.3.79 and that period would come to an end in 1982 while as, the suit as stated by the learned counsel, has been filed on 16.10.85.
8. Section 9 of the Limitation Act is very clear that once the period of limitation starts to run, no subsequent disability which a period may suffer in terms of Section 6 to 8 can even stop the period of limitation. If that be the situation then once a clock has started ticking, a physical or mental disability suffered by a party cannot stop the period of limitation. The case of the appellant would be much worse.
9. Having regard to the aforesaid discussion, I feel that the appeal is without any merit as no substantial question of law is arising from the appeal, despite this, the appeal has been pending in this Court for the last more than eight years. Hence, the appeal is dismissed.
V.K. SHALI, J.
FEBRUARY 21, 2013 RN R.S.A. No.78/2005 Page 4 of 4