Delhi High Court
Leela Nand vs Indian Airlines Corpn. Ltd. & Anr on 21 February, 2013
Author: V.K.Shali
* 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.
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.
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
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
