[2025:RJ-JP:11359] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 283/1998 Kailash Goyal S/o Shri Shivbux Goyal, aged about 42 years, resident of New Cloth Market, Chittorgarh At Present Residing At B-229, Alkapuri, Ratlam M.P. ----Appellant/plaintiff Versus 1. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation Through General Manager-Cum-Managing Director 2. Regional Manager, R.S.R.T.C., Udaipur 3. Additional Chief Manager, R.S.R.T.C., Udaipur 4. Additional General Manager Personnel, R.S.R.T.C., Udaipur 5. Chairman, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Jaipur ----Respondents/defendants For Appellant(s) : Mr. B.L. Gupta, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. J.K. Singhi, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Ran Singh, Advocate HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order 11/03/2025 1. Instant Civil Second Appeal is preferred by appellant-plaintiff aggrieved from judgment dated 05.03.1998 in civil regular appeal No. 37/1989 passed by learned Additional District Judge, No.5, Jaipur City, Jaipur whereby judgment and decree dated 12.09.1989 in civil suit No. 122-A/1989 passed by learned Additional Munsif Magistrate No.5, Jaipur City, Jaipur for declaratory relief was set aside and civil suit was dismissed. [2025:RJ-JP:11359] (2 of 13) [CSA-283/1998] 2. Learned Counsel for appellant while relying upon judgment in cases of Ram Ratan Sharma Vs. RSRTC and Ors. (S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 245/1996, Date of Judgment, 01.03.1997), Mali Ram Banjara Vs. RSRTC, MANU/RH/2198/2013, RSRTC and Ors. Vs. Omprakash Sharma (S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 278/2003, Shyam Singh Vs. RSRTC and Ors. (S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 291/1997), Sattar Mohammad Vs, RSRTC and Ors. (S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 419/1998) has submitted that after dismissal of revision petition by the Chairman of defendant- RSRTC, the suit was filed within a period of 3 years and learned Trial Court after considering the statement of both the parties has decided this issue No. 5 in favor of appellant-plaintiff. He also referred the order dated 04.12.1984 and submitted that the order was not supplied by the Corporation, and the Court should not insist to provide a copy of order dated 04.12.1984. He further referred the judgment passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Hon’ble Court and submitted that the Chairman has full authority and power to review decision of Appellate Authority subordinate to him. He further submitted that the final order in the case was passed on 04.12.1984 and there is no specific denial by defendants, therefore, the Court may consider the institution of civil suit within the time limit prescribed for filing of civil suit. He also referred the standing order and submitted that the Chairman has full authority and review or revision can be filed before him but in the instant case, a copy of order passed by the Chairman on 04.12.1984 was not made available to him, and the appellant- plaintiff has not filed same before the Trial Court. At last, he [2025:RJ-JP:11359] (3 of 13) [CSA-283/1998] submitted that the Chairman of the Corporation has unlimited power to review the order passed by any authority subordinate to him. 3. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned Senior Advocate appearing for respondents and he submitted that as per standing orders an employee can file appeal before next higher authority within a period of 30 days. He further submits that nowhere it has provided that a review or a revision against the order of Appellate Authority can be filed before the Chairman of Corporation. He also referred the findings recorded by the Trial Court and submitted that the findings are contrary to the pleadings and evidence of the parties, and appellate Court has rightly set aside the findings. He also submitted that without a specific pleading, the issue of limitation can be raised by the defendant, even at appellate stage. He specifically referred judgment in case of Narne Rama Murthy vs Ravula Somasundaram & Ors (2005) 6 SCC 614 and submitted that when a suit is barred by limitation then the Court ought to have decided the question of limitation as same is a pure question of law. He also submitted that it is power of the Court to decide limitation at the outset even in absence of the plea. He also referred the judgment in case of Smt. Vidushi garg Vs. M/s Gauri Sales & Ors. (S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 923/2017) passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court at Jodhpur and submitted that judgment in case of Narne Rama Murthy vs Ravula Somasundaram (supra) was relied by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. He further referred the judgment in case of Dahiben Vs. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhansusali & Ors. (2020) [2025:RJ-JP:11359] (4 of 13) [CSA-283/1998] 7 SCC 366, L.C. Hanumanthappa Vs. H.B. Shivkumar 2016 (1) SCC 332 and Khatri Hotels Pvt Ltd. Vs. Union of India 2011 (9) SCC 126 and submitted that the limitation starts from first cause of action as per Article 57/58 of the Limitation Act. At last, he submitted that learned Trial Court has committed serious error while passing a decree in favor of appellant-plaintiff and same was rightly set aside by the First Appellate Court. 4. Heard learned counsel for appellant and learned Senior Advocate appearing for respondents. Perused the material placed on record and also considered the judgments as referred by both the parties. 5. The facts giving rise to instant second appeal are that appellant-plaintiff filed a suit for declaration on 18.11.1987 stating that plaintiff was appointed on the post of Conductor in respondent-Corporation against permanent post and by a dismissal order was issued on 21.02.1980, the service of plaintiff was terminated by respondents-defendants. The plaintiff has filed an appeal before the departmental authority, which was dismissed on 12.07.1980. Thereafter, plaintiff has filed a review petition and same was also dismissed on 15.02.1982. The plaintiff claimed to have filed a revision/review petition before the Chairman and same was dismissed on 04.12.1984. The plaintiff has challenged the termination order on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice and cause of action was said to accrued from 21.02.1980 to 04.12.1984, due to various orders as mentioned hereinabove. The plaintiff has prayed for declaration of order dated 21.02.1980, 12.07.1980, 15.02.1982 and 04.12.1984 as [2025:RJ-JP:11359] (5 of 13) [CSA-283/1998] illegal, void and against principles of natural justice, with further prayer for reinstatement in service along with all service benefits. 6. The defendants have filed the written statement raising several objections, including maintainability and jurisdiction learned Trial Court has framed 5 issues and issue No.2 pertains to jurisdiction, issue No.3 relates to improper valuation and payment of Court fee whereas issue No. 5 relates to limitation. The plaintiff has examined himself as PW-1 and exhibited three documents namely Ex.1 (termination order), Ex.2 (order for dismissal of appeal) and Ex.3 (order for dismissal of review). In rebuttal DW-1 has appeared on behalf of defendants and exhibited 10 documents. Learned Trial Court after considering the evidence and material on record has decreed the suit in favor of appellant- plaintiff. 7. The defendants have preferred an appeal before the First Appellate Court and learned Appellate Court has noticed that the plaintiff has failed to submit any order passed on 04.12.1984, and that there is no provision for revision or review before the Chairman under the standing orders (S.O.) of defendants. The Appellate Court was of the view that the suit is required to be filed within three years from 15.02.1982 when order Ex.3 was passed in review petition filed by plaintiff but the suit was filed on 18.11.1987 and same is barred by law of limitation. 8. This Court while considering the appeal for admission has framed the following substantial questions of law of limitation. (1). Whether the facts which are not denied specifically shall be deemed to be admitted facts, as in this case the defendants- respondents have not denied the fact neither in their written [2025:RJ-JP:11359] (6 of 13) [CSA-283/1998] statements that the plaintiff has not filed the appeal, revision or review before the respondent Nos. 3 to 5. So what will be the effect of this admission? (2). Whether any fact asserted by any party in support of his averments made in the pleadings, not controverted or rebutted by the either party, shall be deemed to be admitted, as in the present case the defendants have failed to controvert the fact? (3). Whether the burden of proof of any issue lies on any party to the suit and that party fails to prove that fact then what will be the consequences of that, as in the present case the burden of proof of issue No.5 was on defendants-respondents but they have failed to prove that issue and these circumstances what will be the effect of this in the present case? (4). Whether the Chairman has got power to review the order passed by the Appellate Authority and the limitation for filing of the suit will start from the date when the review application was disposed of by the Chairman? (5). Whether the learned First Appellate Court can decide the matter on extraneous grounds which were not subject matter of the suit and were not raised before the learned Trial Court in the written statements? 9. A perusal of the entire material clearly indicates that learned Trial Court has framed issue No. 5 relating to limitation. The admission of PW-1 plaintiff clearly indicates that he has not filed any order which was passed on 04.12.1984. The proceedings of the Trial Court also indicate that no application whatsoever was filed either for interrogatories or for requisition of order dated 04.12.1984 from the defendants. The First Appellate Court after [2025:RJ-JP:11359] (7 of 13) [CSA-283/1998] considering the entire material has concluded that plaintiff has failed to file a copy of order dated 04.12.1984, therefore the suit was time barred. Herein, the plaintiff has filed a civil suit primarily to challenge termination order dated 21.02.1980, Appellate order dated 12.07.1980 and review order dated 15.02.1982 in para No.4. In para No. 5, the plaintiff has mentioned that a review/revision was dismissed on 04.12.1984. On accrual of cause of action on 21.02.1980 and 04.12.1984, the instant suit filed on 18.11.1987. Thus, the period of limitation is counted from 04.12.1984 (last order passed in the matter). 10. The defendants have not specifically denied order existence of dated 04.12.1984 but para No.5 is not admitted by defendants rather para No. 8 is also not admitted. Even in para No.8 an objection about limitation is raised by the defendants and learned Trial Court has framed issue No.5. The plaintiff has failed to substantiate any order allegedly passed on 04.12.1984. No specific question about hearing by the Chairman of Corporation is asked from DW-1, during cross-examination by the plaintiff. 11. A rule of pleading indicates that there has to be a specific denial but in absence of specific denial it is discretion of the Court to consider that whether those facts were proved or are still required to be proved. Rule 3 and 5 of Order VIII of CPC provides for specific denial whereas Rule 10 provides for consequences of admission. Herein, the material on record indicate that the defendants have not admitted any fact including existence and passing of any order on 04.12.1984 by the Chairman. The Plaintiff himself has admitted that he is not possessing any order dated 04.12.1984. Since, the claim is made [2025:RJ-JP:11359] (8 of 13) [CSA-283/1998] by the plaintiff that the Chairman has dismissed the revision/review on 04.12.1984, therefore, it is duty of the plaintiff to establish that an order was passed on 04.12.1984 and suit is filed within limitation. 12. In case of Narne Rama Murthy vs Ravula Somasundaram (supra) followed by this Court in case of Smt. Vidushi garg Vs. M/s Gauri Sales & Ors. (supra) Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that a question of limitation is a pure question of law and from the pleadings of the parties it becomes apparent that a suit is barred by limitation. It is duty of the Court to decide limitation at the outset even in absence of plea. The judgment in case of Narne Rama Murthy vs Ravula Somasundaram (supra) was considered by 3 Judge Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Nusli Neville Wadia vs Ivory Properties (2020) 6 SCC 557. 13. Herein, this case a specific issue was framed as issue No.5 and present appellant-plaintiff was well-aware about the issue but the Trial Court has not considered issue No.5 in relation o averment in the plaint, wherein plaintiff has stated that cause of action commenced from 21.02.1980 and continued till 04.12.1984. Three orders passed on 21.02.1980, 12.07.1980 and 15.02.1982 were produced by PW-1-plaintiff as Ex.1 to Ex.3 but order dated 04.12.1984 was not produced, therefore, the cause of action which accrued first time on 21.02.1980 continued till 15.02.1982, and under Article 58 of Limitation Act the suit is required to be filed within three years. If plaintiff was able to substantiate dismissal of review or revision by Chairman of RSRTC on 04.12.1984 then the suit was within limitation but the [2025:RJ-JP:11359] (9 of 13) [CSA-283/1998] admission clearly indicates that the plaintiff has not filed any document or order relating to dismissal of review or revision by Chairman on 04.12.1984. The Trial Court was required to consider issue of limitation in light of claim made by plaintiff but the Trial Court has decided issue No.5 in favor of plaintiff, without considering the fact there is no order on record to claim period of limitation from 04.12.1984. 14. The principle of law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court and referred hereinabove clearly indicate that even in absence of specific objection in pleading, a legal issue relating to Limitation can be raised by oral arguments and the Court is required to address the same. Herein, this case learned counsel for appellant has referred the judgment in case of Ram Ratan Sharma Vs. RSRTC and Ors. (supra), Mali Ram Banjara Vs. RSRTC (supra), RSRTC and Ors. Vs. Omprakash Sharma (supra) and submitted that after dismissal of review or revision on 04.12.1984, the limitation would start from last order. In aforementioned cases, nowhere it was held that only on basis of averment in plaint the Court may presume that the suit was filed within the prescribed period of limitation. Herein, the order was lastly passed on 15.02.1982 and the suit is required to be filed within three years from 15.02.1982 but the suit was filed on 18.11.1987 and the Appellate Court has rightly held that the suit is barred by law of Limitation as same is filed after prescribed period of limitation. 15. Herein, this case the issue is not the power of Chairman of RSRTC, rather a Chairman has authority and power to supersede the order passed by any of the authority subordinate to him but [2025:RJ-JP:11359] (10 of 13) [CSA-283/1998] same has to be in accordance with standing orders (S.O.). The plaintiff who examined as PW-1 has failed to substantiate the averment made in para Nos. 4 and 5 of plaint regarding dismissal of review /revision by the Chairman of RSRTC. 16. A perusal of pleadings and evidence of the parties including defendant clearly indicate that specific objection about non- consideration of review by Chairman by RSRTC was taken either in written statement or in evidence of DW-1, but this fact is admitted by PW-1 that he has not filed any order passed on 04.12.1984. It is settled principle of law that at the time of institution of suit the Trial Court is required to consider jurisdiction, valuation, Court fee, cause of action and limitation and duty lies upon the Court to consider these issues so that a notice may not be issued in case there is no disclosure of cause of action or suit is barred by law of limitation. Similarly, if a suit is not properly valued or proper Court fee is not paid then the Court is required to consider these aspects before issuing notice. Similarly, if suit is barred by any law and the Civil Court lacks the jurisdiction, then same has to be considered before issuing the notice. 17. If the learned Trial Court has not taken care at the time of institution of suit then the suit was not required to be registered as plaintiff has not substantiated the plaint with order dated 04.12.1984 which he claims to be passed by the Chairman of RSRTC. The admission of plaintiff clearly indicate that he has not filed order dated 04.12.1984, to claim limitation from 04.12.1984. 18. There is no fact on record to establish that the Chairman of RSRTC has even considered review or revision of appellant-plaintiff and declined on 04.12.1984. On the basis of objection in para No. [2025:RJ-JP:11359] (11 of 13) [CSA-283/1998] 8 of written statement, a specific issue No. 5 was framed by learned Trial Court on 14.08.1989. This issue was decided against the defendant by the Trial Court, though no specific evidence was filed on record by defendant after framing of this issue. The period of limitation may be a mixed question of fact and law but all depends upon individual facts of case. 19. It is duty of the plaintiff to prove that the suit is filed within limitation, if same is not filed within limitation then this fact is required to be mentioned as per provision of Section 3 of Limitation Act and Rule 6 of Order VII CPC but herein the plaintiff has claimed that suit is filed within limitation on the basis of last order dated 04.12.1984, thus the primary burden was never discharged by the plaintiff. Now, the appellant-plaintiff cannot claim that in absence of specific denial or non-production of evidence, the Trial Court may presume that a suit is within the limitation. Herein, the cause of action as mentioned by plaintiff accrued on such specific date and from specific date the suit is required to be filed within the period prescribed under the Limitation Act, 1963. Thus, the judgment as referred hereinabove or in case of Sattar Mohammad Vs. RSRTC (supra) are not applicable to the facts of the case. 20. After considering the legal position as mentioned hereinabove, the suit was required to be filed within three years from last order pased by the defendant-Corporation. Learned Senior Advocate appearing for respondents has relied upon Article 58 of Limitation Act and also the principle of law as laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Dahiben Vs. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhansusali & Ors. (supra), L.C. Hanumanthappa [2025:RJ-JP:11359] (12 of 13) [CSA-283/1998] Vs. H.B. Shivkumar (supra) and Khatri Hotels Pvt Ltd. Vs. Union of India (supra). The law of limitation is passed on public policy with intent to provide a specific time frame for redressal of grievances or dispute filed for resolution or redressal and if a grievance is not filed within a specific time period provided under the law then the grievance is barred by law of limitation. A simple theory is that the party is barred from exercising a legal remedy if a claim or action is brought outside the prescribed period. It means the expiration of period of limitation gives a right to opposite party to raise a defence in legal proceeding. It is also an admitted fact that provision of Section 5 is not applicable in the suit. 21. Having considered aforesaid and legal position, if we consider the judgment in case of RSRTC Vs. Bal Mukund Bairwa (2009) 4 SCC 299, a Civil Court has a limited jurisdiction to entertain and decide the Civil suit passed on violation of principle of natural justice but certainly the power of Civil Court is not to supersede authority under the Industrial Disputes Act. Herein, the First Appellate Court after considering the law of limitation has allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court. When a specific legal issue is raised then it is not necessary to submit oral or documentary evidence to prove the issue, thus, it is not expected to submit evidence on issue No.5, which can be decided on basis of arguments and submissions after full trial. 22. In absence of any evidence on record, this issue No. 5 can be decided only on the basis of oral submissions as same is a legal issue. Herein, the plaintiff is required to establish that his cause of [2025:RJ-JP:11359] (13 of 13) [CSA-283/1998] action continued till 04.12.1984 but his admission clearly indicates that he has not filed any document to substantiate and extend period of limitation. 23. In view of discussions made hereinabove, the judgments as referred by learned counsel for appellant are not helpful in deciding the substantial question of law Nos. 1 to 5. Thus, the issue Nos. 1 to 5 are answered in negative. 24. In view of discussion made hereinabove, the instant S.B. Civil Second Appeal preferred by appellant-plaintiff is hereby dismissed with pending application(s), if any. 25. No order as to costs. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J MONU /188-S