Punjab-Haryana High Court
Punjab State Power Corporation Limited ... vs Nachattar Singh on 13 March, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:036377
2024:PHHC:036377
CR-1594-2024 (O&M) - 1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH.
137 CR-1594-2024 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 13.03.2024.
Punjab State Power Corporation Limited, Patiala and another
...Petitioners.
Versus
Nachattar Singh ....Respondent.
***
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUKHVINDER KAUR
----
Present: Ms. Monica Chhibber Sharma, Advocate with
Ms. Priyanka Goyal, Advocate
for the petitioners.
****
Sukhvinder Kaur, J.
By way of present revision petition, the petitioners have
challenged order dated 27.10.2023 (Annexure P-5) passed by learned trial
Court, vide which application filed by the petitioners/defendants under
Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 of CPC was dismissed.
2. The brief facts relevant for the adjudication of the present
revision petition are that the respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for declaration
and mandatory injunction thereby asserting that work charge services
rendered by the respondent/plaintiff w.e.f. 01.12.1979 to 09.07.1986 with
petitioner/PSPCL may be treated as qualifying service for the purpose of
pension and pensionary benefits. The respondent/plaintiff sought relief of
declaration to the effect that petitioner corporation is not making full
1 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:036377
2024:PHHC:036377
CR-1594-2024 (O&M) - 2-
payment of pension, commuted value of pension, gratuity to respondent/
plaintiff due to non counting of his work charge service and sought
declaration that illegal recovery of the amount of Rs.1,01,983/- from the
pensionary benefits of the respondent/plaintiff and not making full payment
of gratuity/pensionary benefits to him due to effecting illegal recovery from
the gratuity of the plaintiff and for not making payment of interest on
delayed payment of pension, commuted value of pension, gratuity, leave
encashment, GPF etc. to the plaintiff as have been partly paid to the
plaintiff, are illegal, null and void, against the provisions of rules and
regulations of the defendant department and settled law on the subject.
3. Notice of the said suit was issued and petitioners/ defendants
appeared in the said suit and filed written statement and simultaneously
moved an application under Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 151 CPC
for rejection of the plaint.
4. The plaintiff/ respondent contested the aforesaid application
and filed the reply. Vide impugned order dated 27.10.2023, the aforesaid
application filed by the petitioners/ defendants corporation under Order VII
Rule 11 CPC was dismissed by Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Patiala. Hence,
the petitioners knocked the doors of this Court by way of filing the present
revision petition.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the trial
Court has failed to appreciate the fact that the petitioners/ defendants in
their written statement had raised the preliminary objection with regard to
the maintainability of the suit being barred by limitation, as the same has
2 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:036377
2024:PHHC:036377
CR-1594-2024 (O&M) - 3-
been filed on 02.08.2022 i.e. after 10-11 years of the retirement of the
plaintiff i.e. 31.01.2012, even the gratuity payment order and pension
payment order were issued on 11.07.2012 and since then the plaintiff/
respondent has been regularly getting his pension. He has further contended
that the plaintiff never raised any claim or representation to the authorities
with regard to the same, so the cause of action once barred could not be
revived. He has vehemently argued that where ex-facie the plaint is
hopelessly time barred then the Court is well within its power to warrant
interference or the Court could have proceeded by treating the issue of
limitation as a preliminary issue which has not been done by the learned
trial Court. He has submitted that the trial Court has failed to appreciate that
the real object is to ensure to keep out of Courts such litigation which is
abuse of process of the Court and is bogus irresponsible litigation. In
support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioners has relied
upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Dahiben Vs. Arvindbhai
Kalyanji Bhanusali (Gajra) (D) Thr. Lrs and others, 2020 (7) SCC 366;
C.S. Ramaswamy Vs. V.K. Senthil and others, 2022 civil Appeal No.500 of
2022 decided on 30.09.2022 and Ramisetty Venkatanna and another Vs.
Nasyam Jamal Saheb and others, 2023 (2) Apex Court Judgments (SC)
444.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and have gone
through the relevant record.
7. The application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC has been filed by
the petitioners/ defendants primarily on the ground that the suit of the
plaintiff is barred by limitation and he has no cause of action to file the
3 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:036377
2024:PHHC:036377
CR-1594-2024 (O&M) - 4-
present suit. The trial Court has rightly held that the suit of the plaintiff
cannot be dismissed at the threshold, because question of limitation and
without any cause of action, are mixed questions of fact and law which
require evidence for the proper and effective adjudication. "Cause of action"
consists of bundle of material facts, which are necessary for plaintiff to
prove in order to entitle him to relief claimed in suit. Otherwise also, it has
been alleged in the plaint that the cause of action was recurring one and
arose on every month from the date of retirement, when the plaintiff is being
paid lesser pension than his entitlement and there is no limitation for
claiming the pension and pensionary benefits. It has also been alleged in the
plaint that various representations were given to the department by the
plaintiff/ respondent but of no avail and legal notice dated 16.07.2022 was
also served upon the petitioners department to count work charge period of
service of the plaintiff and to refund the amount of Rs.1,01,983/- illegally
recovered from the gratuity/ pensionary benefits to the plaintiff, but of no
effect.
8. The aforesaid case law cited by learned counsel for the
petitioners is not applicable to the facts of the case in hand as these cases
have their own peculiar facts. The trial Court has rightly relied upon the
judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Salim D. Agbotwala and others Vs.
Shamalji Oddhavji Thakkar and others, 2021(4) CCC, 323, wherein it has
been held that since limitation is a mixed question of fact and law and
therefore, answer to issue regarding limitation, depends upon evidence.
9. Thus, there being no illegality or infirmity in the impugned
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:036377
2024:PHHC:036377
CR-1594-2024 (O&M) - 5-
order no interference therewith is called for while exercising the revisional
jurisdiction. The present revision petition being bereft of any merits stands
dismissed.
10. All pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of
accordingly.
(SUKHVINDER KAUR)
JUDGE
13.03.2024.
komal
Whether speaking/ reasoned : Yes/ No
Whether Reportable : Yes/ No
5 of 5
