IN THE HIGH COURT 014' KARNATAKA AT SAn:c3;§L£;§fi§:~--
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY or: A.Uc;US*:?%Si2otjS S %
BEFORE 1' % 1 'V
THE HONBLE MR. JUS«*1j§cEV"N,15af:S:«.mNNA
Cr:)MPLEX,Q§3.V.G, ROAD, _
£%ASAVAi~'AGU}31., 1SANSA''Lo1éS
- - p ...PE'I'I'I'¥ONER
(By Sn'_Y HAS'IP1§ASAjS, ASVOCASS ;
.....
';_:f' " ..vEv1§UGO§'AL RAO 1* A
N086 (QLDVNO 53)
-- =..SR§I\iIVAS 'CGLOHY ARCHALLS
' UTTARAHALL; POST
'FSAEVGAVLORE
~~ RESPONDENT
A ~: '{BnyVSri; v B RAVISHANKAR, ADVOCATE}
' HCRP F§LED U/'S. 18 OF THE SMALL CAUSES COURT ACT
: A<3iA.1NSr THE JUDGMENT AND DEGREE DATED 23.1.2006
PASSED IN SC.NO. 195'?/2003 ON THE FILE 'OF THE IV ADDL.
TJUDGE, coum 09* SMALL CAUSES, BANGALORE cm
{SCCH.NO.6), D§SMISSING THE SUIT FOR RECOVERY OF
MONEY.
This civil revision petition, coming on for final
hearing, this day, tht Court, made the following:
ORDER
The short point for determination
as to,
whether the case on is VA
1 12 of the Limitation Aet’?
2. The brief rac:;s;~ rise to above
question,areasfO110W$:_.___ »_’ .< V ._ . ..
The of telephone 1993 he did not
pay tefeyhene suit was filed for
recovery V.’bilVI:fs._ S
on appreciation of evidence has
was due to plaintiff in a sum of
the arrears of telephone bill from the
to 1998. The suit was filed on 27.9.2003
“‘S{:_;€:;.;.:>_’I.§§feyoz1d period of 3 years and suit is barred by
4. The learned counsel for 1wtitioner would
submit that the case on hand is governed by Article
I 12 of the Limitation Act; wherein pexiod of thirty years
!\3~
is provided in a suit fiiod by or on behaif of _
Government or State Government, >
5. In order to appreciate fa.§:t,. :it ‘i.s
to find out whether the st1it’ is–..f1Ie<Vi" by" or h§ha1f.:'3ofV
the Central Government. A M H
In a decision 45.? 479, it is
held, "one of tostso " ovhether an
institution Government
has to functions as a
responoilolo and not as part
of any deI§s'7QfiCnf
Vsa£oé'–Vdooision it is hold,
.,A;;;of1'1<%:z€ "tt:st would be to see Whether it is
endowedv capacity to contract obligations and
Col" Whether it has power to possess, use or
a seal.
‘ 7. In the case on hand, the suit is fikzd by Bharat
u Sanchar Nigam Limited, I’C})I'(‘:S€I}t6d by its Accounts
Officer, Bangalore Telooom District, South. The frame
of the suit is not in torms of Order 27 Rule 1 of CPC.
N gwmo-
do not find any reasons to interfere with the impugrjjéd”v:.’..j: E _
judgment
Accordingly» the civil Ievisisn is ‘ ‘A
dismissed.
cm/-