Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details


High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation


Onkar Anand v. M/s. Gobind Agencies & Investment Co. Pv - RSA-3105-2005 [2006] RD-P&H 1269 (28 February 2006)


Case No. : R.S.A.No.3105 of 2005

Date of Decision : February 28, 2006.

Onkar Anand .... Appellant


M/s. Gobind Agencies &

Investment Co. Pvt. Ltd. .... Respondent Coram : Hon'ble Mr.Justice Viney Mittal.

* * *

Present : Mr.N.S.Shekhawat, Advocate

for the appellant.


The plaintiff has approached this court having remained unsuccessful before the first appellate court. He filed a suit for recovery of Rs.32,217.50, being amount of withheld emoluments and the payment for encashment of earned leave for 45 days along with interest thereupon.

The suit filed by the plaintiff was decreed by the learned trial court. The matter was taken up in appeal by the defendant. The learned first appellate court re-examined the matter and came to the conclusion that the suit was barred by limitation. It was held that the plaintiff had retired with effect from September 30, 1991 and the suit had been filed by him on October 12, 1994. It was also held by the learned first appellate court that the document dated October 24, 1991 did not extend the limitation in any manner inasmuch as the said document Ex.Pw-2/2 was merely a letter of thanks, written by the plaintiff. Consequently, the appeal filed by the defendant was allowed and suit of the plaintiff was dismissed.

R.S.A.No.3105 of 2005 : 2 :

Shri N.S.Shekhawat, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has argued that the learned first appellate court has misread the document and the related document which was relevant for consideration was the document dated October 24, 1991 (Ex.PW 2/3). Learned counsel has produced the same for my perusal. I have gone through the document Ex.PW 2/3, but find that the aforesaid document relates to certain other payments to the plaintiff. There is no mention of the payments in question claimed by the plaintiff. In these circumstances, the said document can not be treated to be acknowledgement under Section 18 of the Limitation Act.

Consequently, the suit filed by the plaintiff can not be treated to be within limitation.

Nothing has been shown that the findings recorded by the learned first appellate court suffer from any infirmity or are contrary to the record.

No question of law, much less any substantial question of law, arises in the present appeal.


February 28, 2006 ( VINEY MITTAL )

monika JUDGE


Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites


dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.