Judgment:
Rajesh Balia, J.
1. The only ground raised in this appeal is about the limitation of the counter claim filed by the State in a suit filed by the appellant. The counter claim relating to a money claim of the State has been entertained by the trial Court by treating the limitation in filing a counter claim in a suit by the State in any matter to be 30 years in accordance with the provisions of Article 112 of the Schedule appended to the Limitation Act, 1963.
2. It has been contended by learned Counsel for the appellant before the learned Single Judge as well as before us that limitation for filing of a suit for the plaintiff-appellant had been three years and necessarily for that reason the limitation for entertaining any counter claim in such suit can only be three years and not different from the limitation of the suit in which counter claim has been filed. It was also contended by learned Counsel that Article 112 is restricted to the suit in relation to the immovable properties as according to him the corresponding provision in the Limitation Act, 1908 was operative only in the field of suit filed by the State relating to immovable property which was repealed by the Act of 1963.
3. These contentions, in our opinion, cannot be sustained in view of the plain language of Section 3(2)(b) read with Article 112 which reads as under:
Section 3(2)(b) any claim by way of a set-of or a counter-claim, shall be treated as a separate suit and shall be deemed to have been instituted
(i) in the case of a set-off, on the same date as the suit in which the set-off is pleaded;
(ii) in the case of a counter-claim, on the date on which the counter claim is made in court.Article 112.Any suit (except a suit Thirty When thebefore the Supreme years period ofCourt in the exercise of limitationits original jurisdiction) would beginby or on behalf of the to runCentral Government or under thisany State Government Act againstincluding the all suits byGovernment of the State a privateof Jammu and Kashmir person.
4. It is apparent from the perusal of the Article 112 that it makes no distinction between the suit involving immovable property or movable property. In fact it applies to suits of all kinds irrespective of nature of claim made by or on behalf of the Central Govt. or any State Govt. including the Government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir.
5. The date of the commencement of the limitation remains the same as in the case of the like suit to be initiated by the private person but the terminal point in the case of the State is 30 years whereas the terminal point in the case of private person shall be governed in accordance with the nature of suit and provisions governing the specific matter of the suit to be filed by the private person.
6. It is also well settled and statutorily recognised Under Section 3(2)(b) of the Act of 1963 that the counter claim by any defendant filed in a suit is to be considered as a separate suit itself and it is deemed to have been instituted on the date on which the counter claim is made in the Court. Such claim is to be tried and adjudicated as a separate suit, all be it in the same proceedings. The expression, counter claim only suggests that it only denotes that it has not preceded the filing of the suit but has been filed in answer to a suit filed by the person against a defendant, who claims to have an enforceable right against the plaintiff and wants its adjudication.
7. As the suit to be filed by the State, if seen independent of plaint filed by the appellant, was within 30 years of the date when cause of action arose, the claim put forward as a counter to suit filed by the present appellant, such counter claim has to be treated as a separate suit by the State. The limitation for entertaining the adjudication of the counter claim shall be governed by Article 112 and will have to be adjudicated on that basis. Thus the contention of appellant on this premise must fail.
8. No other point has been raised.
9. The appeal fails and is hereby dismissed in limine.
10. 50% of the Court fee may be refunded to the appellant.