If a Suit Is Ex Facie Barred by Limitation, the Court Has No Choice but to Dismiss It: P&H High Court

“Time Does Not Stop Once It Starts Running” –  In a significant reaffirmation of limitation law in service matters, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has allowed a Regular Second Appeal filed by the State of Punjab, setting aside a decree that had granted a revised pay scale to a government employee nearly two decades after the alleged cause of action arose.

On 04 February 2026, Justice Virinder Aggarwal held that a suit seeking declaration of entitlement to a revised pay scale from 15.02.1970, but instituted only on 29.04.1993, was “clearly and hopelessly barred by limitation.” The Court restored the dismissal of the suit and underscored that limitation is not a mere technicality but a mandatory statutory command.

The plaintiff had joined service in 1969 as an Assistant Pump Driver and claimed that he was later promoted to the post of Pump Driver/Operator in 1975. He relied upon a memorandum dated 14.11.1970, revising the pay scale of Pump Operator/Water Pump Mechanical to Rs. 110–180. According to him, the post of Pump Operator was equivalent to that of Water Pump Mechanic as recognized by a subsequent memorandum dated 23.07.1972.

On that basis, he claimed entitlement to the revised pay scale of Rs. 110–180 with effect from 15.02.1970. He further alleged discrimination, stating that similarly situated employees had been granted the benefit, while he was denied the same despite repeated representations and issuance of notice under Section 80 CPC.

The civil suit was filed in April 1993 seeking declaration and consequential arrears.

The State contested the claim, denying equivalence of posts and raising several preliminary objections including limitation. The Trial Court dismissed the suit. However, the First Appellate Court reversed the judgment and granted a declaration in favour of the plaintiff with arrears.

Aggrieved, the State approached the High Court in Regular Second Appeal.

Scope of Second Appeal in Punjab & Haryana

Justice Aggarwal clarified that in Punjab and Haryana, second appeals are governed by Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act, 1918, in light of the Supreme Court ruling in Pankajakshi v. Chandrika. Therefore, no substantial question of law was required to be formally framed.

The central issue before the Court was whether the suit itself was barred by limitation.

“Section 3 of the Limitation Act Imposes a Duty on the Court”

The State argued that under Article 58 of the Limitation Act, 1963, a suit for declaration must be filed within three years from the date when the right to sue first accrues. Since the plaintiff claimed entitlement from 1970 but filed suit only in 1993, the claim was hopelessly time-barred.

The Court emphasized that limitation can be examined at any stage and quoted the Supreme Court’s recent ruling in S. Shivraj Reddy vs. S. Raghuraj Reddy (2024):

“If a suit is ex facie barred by the law of limitation, a court has no choice but to dismiss the same even if the defendant intentionally has not raised the plea of limitation.”

Justice Aggarwal observed that Section 3 of the Limitation Act casts a statutory duty upon the Court to dismiss a time-barred suit irrespective of whether limitation is specifically pleaded.

Reliance on State of Punjab v. Balkaran Singh

The High Court found the matter squarely covered by the Supreme Court decision in State of Punjab v. Balkaran Singh (AIR 2007 SC 641), where a similar claim regarding pay scale declaration was held to be governed by Article 58.

Quoting the Apex Court, the judgment noted:

“A suit for declaration is governed by Article 58 of the Limitation Act and the period is three years and the terminus a quo is ‘when the right to sue first accrues’.”

The Supreme Court had further held:

“A cause of action once barred does not get revived.”

Justice Aggarwal applied the same reasoning, holding that the right to sue first accrued when the plaintiff was denied the revised pay scale in 1970. Filing the suit in 1993, nearly 23 years later, was fatal.

Recurring Cause of Action Argument Rejected

The plaintiff’s claim that pay matters constitute a recurring cause of action did not find favour with the Court. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the High Court clarified that while salary may accrue monthly, a declaration challenging pay fixation must be sought within the prescribed limitation period.

The Court further noted that once the main relief of declaration is barred, the consequential relief for arrears cannot survive independently.

Justice Aggarwal concluded:

“The present suit, in which the relief is claimed with effect from 15.02.1970 but instituted only on 29.04.1993, is clearly and hopelessly barred by limitation.”

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the State was allowed, the decree of the First Appellate Court was set aside, and the suit was dismissed on the ground of limitation. All pending applications were also disposed of.

The ruling reinforces a foundational principle of civil jurisprudence — limitation law is mandatory and not procedural indulgence. Even in service matters involving pay scales, courts cannot resurrect claims that have long crossed statutory timelines.

The judgment stands as a clear reminder that “time does not stop to run once it has started to run,” and litigants who sleep over their rights cannot expect judicial revival decades later.

Date of Decision: 04 February 2026