Law: Limitation Act, 1908

Section: IX,5,181

Law: Gas (Theft Control and Recovery) Act, (XI of 2016)

Section: 6,7

Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: IX,4,151

(a)    Limitation Act (IX of 1908)-------S. 5---Gas (Theft Control and Recovery) Act (XI of 2016), Ss.6 & 7---Recovery of amount on account of illegal gas supply/usage---Suit by the Sui Southern Gas Company Limited ('SSGC') against the consumer, filing of---Condonation of delay--Sufficient cause---Scope---Gas Utility Court dismissed plaintiff's/SSGC's application under S. 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908 and the summary suit---Validity--Gas Utility Court, after hearing the parties, dismissed SSGC's summary suit on the grounds that the SSGS did not provide any sufficient cause for condoning the delay in filing the said suit---In relevant paragraph of the affidavit in support of the application under section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908, SSGC's authorized representative explained that the reason for not filing the claim earlier was that respondent/ consumer had given false hope to SSGC that he would settle the claim and only declined to pay the arrears 15 days before the date of SSGC' filing its claim before the Gas Utility Court---Appellant/SSGC did not provide any acknowledgement in writing from respondent/consumer, which could amount to extending the limitation period---In view of the same, presumably based on the assumption that the period of limitation for filing a suit for recovery of money was three years from the date when the payment became due, Gas Utility Court dismissed appellant/SSGC's application for condonation of delay for the reason that it did not find sufficient cause given in the said application explaining each and every day of delay in filing the summary suit---Appellant/SSGC had not identified any defect in the impugned order except than claiming that respondent/consumer was involved in gas theft, and the Court should not allow respondent/consumer to be let off---High Court did not find SSGC's submission acceptable--Appellant/SSGC should have acted in a timely manner, not slept over its rights, and taken an indolent attitude---SSGC had filed its claim before the Gas Utility Court under the Gas (Theft Control and Recovery) Act, 2016---Gas Utility Court, at the very inception, took notice of the plaint being time-barred…