IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR REGULAR FIRST APPEAL No.1518 OF 2015 BETWEEN:
M/S. Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd., Aero Engine Research & Design Centre, Post Nag No.9310, C.V.Raman Nagar Post, Bengaluru Complex, Bengaluru-560093. Represented by Manager-HR (AERDC) (By Sri. T.Rajaram, Advocate) AND:
1. Sri. Rihab Abdulrazak, S/o. T.S.Abdulrazak, Tharupeedikayel House, P.O.Koonathukunnu, Thrissur-680123.
2. Smt. P.G.Geetha Bai, D/o. Sri. Gangadharan, Pasnikkamparambil House, Karalam Post, Pin-680713.
(By Sri. Sajanchinnappa, Advocate and Sri. M.A.Subramani, Advocate for R1, R2 - Served) …Appellant ... Respondents This RFA is filed under Section 96 of CPC against the judgment and decree dated 13.08.2015 passed in O.S.No.1789/2014 on the file the XXVII Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru City, allowing the suit for recovery of money.
This RFA coming on for admission this day, the Court delivered the following:
JUDGMENT This appeal is by the plaintiff challenging the order of the trial Court on an application filed by the respondent under Order VII Rule 11(D) of Civil Procedure Code for rejection of plaint on the ground of limitation.
2. The appellant/plaintiff instituted a suit for recovery of an amount of Rs.3,32,550/- with interest @ 8% per annum from the respondent. In the plaint it is stated that the first defendant joined the services of plaintiff on 24.11.2007 executing a bond to the effect that he would repay the entire amount spent by the plaintiff for training him in case if he would violate the terms and conditions of the employment. The first defendant resigned from his job on 20.06.2009. Therefore the plaintiff instituted a suit for recovery of the amount, as the resignation tendered by the first defendant was in violation of the terms and conditions of the bond. The first defendant made an application to reject the plaint as it was time barred.
3. The first defendant contended that the suit should have been filed within three years from 20.06.2009. The trial Court came to conclusion that the suit was time barred and therefore rejected the plaint.
4. Assailing the findings of the trial Court learned counsel for the appellant submits that on 21.01.2011 the plaintiff got issued a notice to the first defendant. On 30.03.2011, the first defendant replied to the notice and therefore limitation period started running from 30.03.2011 i.e., from the date of reply and hence, the suit is in time and the trial Court should not have rejected the plaint. I do not find that the argument of the appellant’s counsel is worth appreciation. The cause of action arose on 20.06.2009, when the first defendant tendered resignation. Issuance of notice is just to demand the amount said to be due by the first defendant to the plaintiff. Reply given by the first defendant on 30.03.2011 does give a fresh cause of action unless in the said reply the first defendant had admitted that the amount due by him to the plaintiff.
5. Learned counsel when questioned, he submits that in the reply first defendant did not admit that he was due any money to the plaintiff. Therefore, this reply does not come within the scope of Section 18 of the Limitation Act. The cause of action started running from 20.06.2009 and the suit having been filed in the year 2014 is clearly time barred. I do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the trial Court. Appeal is dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE KMV/-