JUDGMENT 1. - This Civil Second Appeal has been directed against the judgment and decree dated 1.12.1993, passed by Additional District Judge No. 6, Jaipur City, Jaipur, by which the said Court affirmed the decree dated 5.2.1992, passed by Additional Munsif Magistrate No. 2, Jaipur City, Jaipur, dismissing the suit filed by the plaintiff appellant. 2. Brief relevant facts of the case are that on account of a criminal case lodged against the plaintiff appellant, the respondents terminated the services of the appellant w.e.f. 11.7.1980. The appellant was acquitted in the criminal case on 18.12.1987. Later on, he filed a suit on 2.7.1988 for quashing the termination order with back-wages. Learned A.W.M. No. 2, Jaipur City, Jaipur, vide his judgment and decree dated 5.2.1992, dismissed the suit only on the ground. that the same was barred by limitation, according to the trial court; cause of action accrued to the appellant on 11.7.1980, and since the suit was filed more than three years after the said date, the same was barred by limitation. The decree of the trial court was affirmed by learned A.D.J. No. 6, Jaipur City, Jaipur, vide his judgment and decree dated 1.12.1993. Under these circumstances the plaintiff filed the present second appeal. 3. The submission of the counsel for the appellant is that the appellant's services were terminated only on account of criminal proceedings, cause of action for filing a suit accrued only on account of acquittal on 18.12.1987. The suit was filed it is clearly within limitation. 4. On the other hand, counsel for the respondents submits that the cause of action accrued to the plaintiff on 11.7.80 when his services were terminated. He further submits that the findings of lower courts are finding of fact. This Court should not interfere in the findings recorded by both the courts. 5. I heard counsel for the parties and gone through the judgments passed by both the lower Courts. According to Article 58 of the Indian Limitation Act, limitation for a suit for obtaining declaration will start when the right to sue. first accrues. 6. In the present case the plaintiff sought a declaration that the termination order be declared null and void. This right accrued to the plaintiff appellant for the first time when he was acquitted in a Criminal Case on 18.12.1987. Under such circumstances, in my opinion the suit is clearly within time. first accrues. 6. In the present case the plaintiff sought a declaration that the termination order be declared null and void. This right accrued to the plaintiff appellant for the first time when he was acquitted in a Criminal Case on 18.12.1987. Under such circumstances, in my opinion the suit is clearly within time. Both the lower Courts erred in holding that the right to sue accrued to the plaintiff when his services were terminated on 11.7.1980. The judgments passed by both the Lower Courts are perverse. 7. Consequently, I allow the appeal, set-aside the judgments passed by both the Lower Courts and declare that the order dated 11.7.1980 terminating the services of the plaintiff appellant is void. I direct the respondents to reinstate the plaintiff-respondent. The appellant will not be entitled to back-wages, though he will be entitled to other service benefits. 8. The appellant will ger costs of Rs. 5,000/- from the respondents.Appeal Allowed. *******