M. V. TAMASKAR, J. ( 1 ) THIS is defendant/ appellant's appeal against judgment and decree passed by District Judge, Chhindwara, in C. S. 12a/88, decided on 30-1-1990. ( 2 ) RESPONDENT/ plaintiff M. P. Electricity Board filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 48,000/alleging that money-orders were sent by its Administrative Officer, Distribution Centre of Panjra, Tehsil Amarwara, District Chhindwara through Post Officer Panjra to remit the amount recovered from the electric consumers to the Head Office, M. P. E. B. , Jabalpur. Amount of Rs. 1,94,766. 55 P. were sent by money-orders on different receipts. The Post Master though gave the receipts of the whole amount did not remit full and retained the amount which ultimately in the analysis amount of Rs. 47,737. 67 P. remained unremitted. A report was lodged and a demand was made for Rs. 48,237. 67 P. along with interest. A notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure was served but no reply was received from the appellant/ defendant. ( 3 ) THEREAFTER a suit was filed. The suit is based on documentary evidence Ex. 6, P. 2 to P. 37. The said amount was remitted between 14-8-1978 to 19-2-1980. The officers of the plaintiff conducted an enquiry/ investigation against the Post-Master and found that he had not paid the amount sent through moneyorders to the party as was his obligation. ( 4 ) THE defendant/ appellant resisted the suit on the ground that the complaint sought to have been made to the respective authorities under Rule 78 of the Post OTfice Guide (Part-I) and Rule 67 the Indian Post Office Rules as contained in Posts and Telegraphs Manual. It was said that since the remittances were made between 14-8-1978 to 12-2-1980 the suit as filed on 5-9-1983 was time barred. It was said that the limitation for demand for unpaid amount under Rule 78 of the Post Office Guide (Part-I) and Rule 67 of the Indian Post Office Rules should be made within a period of 2 years from the date of non-receipt. ( 5 ) SHRI Nair learned counsel for the appellant also referred to Rules 43 and 44 (2) of the Indian, Post Office pct regarding limitation of refund of money orders. . However, in view of the discussion of the aforesaid the said rules cannot be said to be statutory. ( 5 ) SHRI Nair learned counsel for the appellant also referred to Rules 43 and 44 (2) of the Indian, Post Office pct regarding limitation of refund of money orders. . However, in view of the discussion of the aforesaid the said rules cannot be said to be statutory. The limitation prescribed under the rules will not be barred for claiming the money within the period prescribed under Article 25 of the Limitation Act. ( 6 ) IN the instant case there is no dispute that the amount was received by the agent of Union Government i. e. Post Master Panjara and the amount was not remitted. The learned trial Court framed the issues and decided all the issues in favour of the plaintiff holding them liable to pay the amount received by them negating all the objections of limitation as prayed for by the defendant. The question, therefore, is that the judgment and decree passed by the court below is liable to be set aside for being in violation of Rule 78 referred to above having been not filed within 2 years. ( 7 ) A perusal of evidence on record shows that the Postal Authorities after receiving the complaint initiated enquiry against the Post Master and found that the amount was received but not remitted to the extent mentioned above. The learned trial Judge held that the plea of limitation cannot be invoked to deny the just claim of the citizen by the public authority. Reliance was placed on Mahabir Kishore v. State of M. P. , 1990 Jab LJ 1. Shri Deepak Okhade learned counsel for the respondent also relied on Madras Port Trust v. Hymanshu International, (1979) 4 SCC 176 for the proposition that the technical pleas of limitation by the Governmental Authorities was not appreciated. ( 8 ) ORDINARILY period of limitation for recovery of 'the amount is 3 years under Article 24 of the Limitation Act, 1963. In the instant case the suit was filed on 5-9-1983 in respect of amount handed over for remitting between 14-8-1978 to 19-9-1980. ( 9 ) PUBLIC confidence in the public institutions and more so the department run by the Government of India should create a confidence in the public. 'the misappropriation by its servant should not make the public to suffer. ( 9 ) PUBLIC confidence in the public institutions and more so the department run by the Government of India should create a confidence in the public. 'the misappropriation by its servant should not make the public to suffer. In the instant case the plaintiff/ respondent M. P. Electricity Board is also a public authority who had despatched its remittance received from the public. The plea that the suit should have been filed within 2 years under Rule 78 referred to above does not stand any reason but on the other hand it can be inferred that by inviting the defendant for verification of receipts. Documents Exs. P. 2 to P. 32 and finding that the actual amount was received by the Postal Authorities and balance was not sent would give further limitation as per the letter of the Regional Account Officer Jabalpur dated 10-3-1981. The period of limitation will stand extended on the principle of acknowledgment of liability. None of the items contained in Exs. P. 2 to P. 32 can be said to have been become barred by limitation. Relying on Madras Port Trust's case (supra) I hold that the money involved in the present case was public money received by the M. P. Electricity Board which was entitled to receive back from the defendant appellant. ( 10 ) THE appeal fails and is dismissed with costs. Appeal dismissed. .