Delhi High Court
Delhi Transport Corporation vs Sh. Bal Kishan on 25 July, 2016
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ RSA No.361/2015
% 25th July, 2016
DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION ....Appellant
Through: Ms. Avnish Ahlawat and Ms. Latika
Chaudhary, Advocates.
versus
SH. BAL KISHAN ....Respondent
Through:
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J.MEHTA
To be referred to the Reporter or not?
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)
1. This Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil
procedure, 1908 (CPC) is filed by the plaintiff/appellant/Delhi Transport
Corporation against the impugned Judgment of the First Appellate Court dated
3.6.2015 by which the first appellate court set aside the Judgment of the Trial
Court dated 13.02.2013 which decreed the suit filed by the present appellant for
recovery of Rs.1,35,759/-. Out of the amount of Rs.1,35,759/- the principal
amount is the amount of Rs.59,019/-, and which amount the appellant/plaintiff
claimed was paid in excess to the respondent/defendant/employee under an
Award passed by the Industrial Tribunal.
2. The admitted facts are that the appellant herein succeeded in its writ
petition against the defendant/employee vide Judgment dated 25.10.2005 passed
in W.P.(C) No.7132/2004 whereby the Award of the Industrial Tribunal was set
aside. Once the Award was set aside, the appellant/plaintiff became entitled to
recover the excess amount paid unless there was stay of operation of the
impugned Judgment dated 25.10.2005.
3. It is conceded that there was never any stay of operation of the Judgment
dated 25.10.2005 in W.P.(C) No. 7132/2004 and the appellant/plaintiff has
claimed extension of limitation only on the ground that the
defendant/respondent/employee had filed an SLP in the Supreme Court which
was said to be dismissed on 13.5.2010, and thereby the appellant/plaintiff claimed
that the subject suit filed on 1.8.2011 for recovery is within limitation.
4. I cannot agree with the arguments urged on behalf of the appellant/plaintiff
because the first appellate court has rightly held that the filing and dismissal of the
SLP by the respondent/defendant on 13.5.2010 would have no impact on the
running of limitation. As already stated above, once the Judgment dated
25.10.2005 comes into operation, the appellant/plaintiff had a right to recover the
amount paid in excess under the Award and which had to be done within three
years from the date of payment or the date of Judgment dated 25.10.2005
whichever was later. Since the Judgment passed on 25.10.2005 was later in point
of time as the payment was made to the respondent/defendant on 11.5.2004,
therefore, period of limitation of three years for recovery of amount paid in excess
expired on 25.10.2008. Suit was filed much later on 1.8.2011 and hence was
rightly dismissed as barred by limitation.
5. In view of the above, no substantial question of law arises under Section
100 CPC for this second appeal to be entertained. Dismissed.
JULY 25, 2016 VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J
ib
