N

CIVIL ;1.PPE.i\L HO. 16 OF 19O~ _\LFON,:; IuOILr.'IGD CHILIDIJJ1"~. 0 •••••••••••••••••••• PL.\.Ilfi.'IFF versus D.:"J._l :~f.) it'iii.:\.. ·~r:.~ sr~:'.L\I.J.i 1 DSfDUSTUIC.';; coo:r:c~LTrr.c SOCIETY••••••••••••••• DEFEND.ANT ,.HJDGEMEHT MAl)IG.U-W, J. This is a clc,im for c..rrenrs of snl(.1ry • The lea.med resident mneistrcte tlismissed tho suit on the preliminnry point thD.t it was time-barred, citine the provisions of Order 7 rule 6 of the Civil Procedure Code, section 3 (1) of the L~w of LimitC1.tion Act, 1971 o.nd article 7 c:: tho First Schedule to tho.t Act. The plaintiff Alfons M0 hnmed Chilumba is dissatisfied and has lodged this appeal, contending that the learned magistrate erred in that he non-directed himself to o.n o.clmo1,7lec1.e;ec_;_:-it th~\t h2c1 been 111':'..de by the defendant employer on 15 June 19040 It is common eround that the period of limi tntion in relo,tion to thiD a.ct ion is six yea.rs. In my view -~::.e lu:,T::.:.u<2 m;::cistr.:.,. te cannot be fo.ul ted. Order 7 rule 6 c.11.c. provides thnt Hh0re tho suit is instituted after the expiration of tho perio2 p:"·0scribed by tho law of limita.tion, the plaint shall sho17 ttc c;rounC:: upon which exeL1ption from such law is claimed. In otl:ur ,.-,ores, :;hcrc but for some 3Tound of exemption from, 0 the le~,, of limi t::i. tionj n suit woul<l prii;i.:-, facic be bcrred by limitation, it is nocesor.~ry for tho plc.intiff to show in his plaint such ground of exemption. If no such eround is shov~1 :L~ tho plaint, it is liable to be rejected unc.~or rule ll(c) of tho srni1G Order. 8:imilo.r provisions are to b0 foun.c in tho Indian Code of Civil Procedure nnc7. tho two J..enrned comm.en to.tors Chi tnley and i.10.0 make the follow:L~s observation: 11 The plaintiff will not be a.llowed to show the eround of exemption nt the trial by putt:L.1G ,in ovi<101.1co any documents such ns aclmowledcomcnts of liability. But the Court mny, save DJ exceptional circumstances, Ctllo·d the: pln.:i.::Yi; to b:.: nmended by 1n.alri.ng the necessary allori:C1.tions. It is sufficient that tho t,--round of uxemption is nppurent on the faco of the plnint. It is not necessary that the plcint should specifically, and in so many worda 9 clnim the [.;-1'.'ound of exemption". I like o.ncl will adopt tl':i:c• cxposi tion. I nm not quite satisfied that aclmowlcdgomcmt -:-.s a er~::.:..~.:: of OXOi,1ption :from the lo.w of· limitation is sufficiently pl<;t.:.c1oc.1 c:- ::'~.)i7;:1 in tho ~::,leint j_n this case. 1• - 2 - And for the roo.s011 I ;:,.;.;. 0 oing to give presently, it would have been pointless for the learned magistrate to allow the plaint to be amended in that regard. By the appolJ.~mt I s ovm ploc.ding, vide para 7 of the plaint; his employment with the respondent '.7u3 determined on 30 October, 1977. I take that as the date on which the cause of action a.rose i.e. tho date from which the poriod of lirJ.i tc. tion started to run. He instituted the proceeding on 20 Ju_ne, 1904 i.e. over six and half years after the accrual of the ca.use of action. :ts observed, he now contends that the period of l:uni ta.tion s:1ould comE1ence from 15 June 1984 the date on which the respondent wrote him a lotter nnrked annoxture IC, which he describes as an acknowledgement of tho claim. We should advert to tho provisions of the I.aw of L:i.mitation Act, 1971. Under section 27(3) of that ~ct, where n right of action has acoruea ~ to recover a debt or other pecunj_::i,ry claim and the p0rson liable or account- able therefor ncknowledges the claim, tho right of action in respect of such debt or pecuniary clam is uoomed to have accrued on, and not be~ore, the date of the aclmowledgement. Hanover, by section 20(4) of the Act, no acknowledBement shall be operative for the purposes of section 27, if it is- made after the expiry of the ,eriod of limitation prescribed for the procee- ding in respect of the right of action to which the acknoWledgement relates. The letter :i.n. question strikes me ns va(?;Ue. Quite possible that it contains a sufficient c.cknowlodr_;c::.iont within the meaning of section 27 of the Law of Limi•i:iation ~\.ct. Even so, it is in effectual under law, for it is evident that at the date tho sQid 2cknowledgement was made, the 15 June 1904, the claim so nclmowlodGed h~~d already become barred by time with effect from 30 October, 1903. In the circumstances I ~n:.i constrained to uphold -the decision of the lower court and dismiss. the appcci.l. 1\s the respondent di.Q.. not appear I make no order as to costs. Delivered to the appollnnt. ,i \ ----· (D. .MAPIGANO) . I .·, ., . -, . ·-1·..... .,,......,ti ( ,•• '-! A JUDGE.