JUDGMENT K.C. Gupta, J. - This Regular Second Appeal is directed by Bhagat Ram, plaintiff, against the judgment and decree dated 8.5.1980 passed by Additional District Judge, Rupnagar, whereby his appeal was dismissed and the judgment and decree of the trial Court dated 25.10.1979, whereby suit for permanent injunction was dismissed, was up-held. 2. Briefly stated, the facts are that Gram Panchayat (Sabha), Tibba Nangal, respondent No. 1, is the owner of common land situated in Village Tibba Nangal. The Bagar grass, which had grown on some portion of the common land was sold to the appellant in an open auction for the years 1969-70, 1970-71 and 1971-72. 3. The grievance of the appellant is that although he had paid Rs. 1,500/-, the auction money, to Ram Ditta, Sarpanch, in the presence of Paras Ram, Misha Ram and Santu, which amount the Sarpanch had utilised for the purchase of utensils but the same was not accounted for and the Panchayat had taken steps to recover that amount by means of coercive method i.e. as arrears of land revenue, to which the respondents were not entitled. With these allegations, suit for permanent injunction for restraining the respondents from recovering the amount of Rs. 1,500/- through coercive method was filed. 4. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 contested the suit. They stated that no amount had been paid by the appellant to respondent No. 2, Ram Ditta, Sarpanch as alleged and further the utensils were purchased with the funds provided by the villagers and not with the Panchayat funds. They denied, that the claim was time barred or recovery could not be effected as arrears of land revenue. They also stated that the suit was not properly valued for the purposes of Court fee and jurisdiction. However, respondent No. 3 did not contest the suit. Accordingly, the following issues were struck on 28.7.1977 :- "1. Whether the plaintiff has made the payment of the amount of Rs. 1500/- to the defendant No. ? OPP 2. Whether the suit is not maintainable and competent in the present form ? OPP 3. Whether the suit is not triable by this Court ? OPD 4. What is the effect of non-service of notice on the defendant before filing this suit ? OPP 5. Whether the suit is valued properly for the purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction ? OPD 6. OPP 3. Whether the suit is not triable by this Court ? OPD 4. What is the effect of non-service of notice on the defendant before filing this suit ? OPP 5. Whether the suit is valued properly for the purpose of Court fee and jurisdiction ? OPD 6. Whether the recovery of the suit amount can be effected as arrears of land revenue ? 7. Whether the claim of the Panchayat is barred by time ? OPP 8. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the decree for permanent injunction as prayed for ? OPP 9. Relief." 5-6. The parties adduced their evidence. The Sub Judge Ist Class, Anandpur Sahib, after hearing counsel for the parties vide judgment dated 25.10.1979, dismissed the suit of the appellant for permanent injunction for restraining the respondents from recovering the amount of Rs. 1,500/- as arrears of land revenue by holding under Issue No. 1 that the appellant had failed to prove that he had paid Rs. 1,500/- to Ram Ditta, Sarpanch on 4.8.1972 in the presence of Paras Ram, Misha Ram and Santu. Issues No. 2 and 4 were decided against the respondents and it was held that the suit was maintainable in the present form and the non-service of notice on the respondents before filing the suit did not effect the validity of the suit. Under issue No. 5, it was held that this suit was properly valued for the purposes of Court fee and jurisdiction. Under Issues No. 6 and 7, it was held that the recovery could be effected from the appellant as arrears of land revenue and even if the claim was time barred, then also there is no bar for the recovery of the amount as land revenue. It was also held that the plea of limitation was not available to the appellant. Under Issue No. 8, it was held that the appellant is not entitled to the relief of permanent injunction. 7. Aggrieved by the said judgment, the plaintiff preferred an appeal, which was also dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Rup Nagar, vide judgment dated 8.5.1980. 8. Still feeling dis-satisfied, the plaintiff has filed the present Regular Second Appeal. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant, Sh. J.S. Chahal, counsel for the respondents, Sh. Gur Rattan Pal Singh and carefully gone through the file. 10. 8. Still feeling dis-satisfied, the plaintiff has filed the present Regular Second Appeal. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant, Sh. J.S. Chahal, counsel for the respondents, Sh. Gur Rattan Pal Singh and carefully gone through the file. 10. It has been held by both the Courts below that the appellant had not paid the amount of Rs. 1,500/- to respondent No. 2, Ram Ditta, Sarpanch. This finding of fact has become final and cannot be agitated in Second Appeal. Now the only question to be determined is whether the Gram Panchayat of Tibba Nangal was competent to recover the aforesaid amount as arrears of land revenue, especially when the amount due appears to be time barred. Counsel for the appellant contended that where the limitation to recover the amount had expired, then the remedy was barred and the Gram Panchayat was not competent to recover the amount of Rs. 1,500/- by coercive means as land revenue. In my opinion, the contention of learned counsel is not tenable. Section 86 of the Punjab Panchayati Raj Act, 1994, talks about Gram Panchayat fund. According to sub-section (1) clause (h), income derived from the common land vested in the Gram Panchayat under any law for the time being in force and would be treated as Gram Panchayat fund. Section 92 of the said Act states that the Collector shall recover any sum due under this Act, other than sums due under decree passed by the Panchayat in exercise of its civil jurisdiction or as fine imposed in exercise of its criminal jurisdiction as if they were arrears of land revenue. Therefore, the Collector is competent to recover any sum due under the Act as arrears of land revenue. Since, Rs. 1,500/- were due from the appellant as the lease money of common land vested in the Gram Panchayat, which the appellant had not paid, so, the Collector was competent to recover it as arrears of land revenue. It is true that the disputed amount related to the periods 1969-70, 1970-71 and 1971-72 and no proceedings were started for the recovery of the said amount till the year 1977. It has been held by the Allahabad High Court in Rajeshwar Mani Tripathi v. Sahkari Samiti, AIR 1972 Allahabad 543, that Limitation Act bars the remedy but it does not cease the liability which one incurs. It has been held by the Allahabad High Court in Rajeshwar Mani Tripathi v. Sahkari Samiti, AIR 1972 Allahabad 543, that Limitation Act bars the remedy but it does not cease the liability which one incurs. Section 3 of the Limitation Act says that if a law court finds that prima facie case is not within the period of limitation it shall dismiss it although no such plea is taken in defence. This simply means that the court concerned may say that your remedy is barred but the liability would exist and the man who is liable may choose to fulfil the liability even though the remedy is barred by limitation and the limitation would not stand in his way. In the present case, it is not the Gram Panchayat who had filed the suit for the recovery of the lease amount but on the other hand, the person who was liable to pay the lease money had come forward by filing suit for permanent injunction that the Panchyat was not competent to recover the amount as arrears of land revenue as he had already paid the amount. The words used in Section 92 are with respect to the recovery of any sum due and not payable. The authority Kalu Ram v. New Delhi Municipal Committee and another, 1965 PLR 1190, cited by the learned counsel for the appellant is not applicable to the facts of the present case because the words used in Section 2 (dd) of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1958, are with respect to rent in relation to any public premises payable periodically for the authorised occupation of the premises but in Section 92 of the Act, the word payable has not been used. Only the word due is used. Moreover, in the abovesaid authority, the Municipal Committee had filed a suit for the recover of the amount which was dismissed as time barred and as such, it was held that since the Committee had lost the remedy to recover the amount in a Court of law, so, it cannot recover the same by invoking the coercive machinery provided by the Act. In the present case, no such suit had been filed by the Gram Panchayat. In the present case, no such suit had been filed by the Gram Panchayat. Moreover, vide order dated 16.7.1982, the appellant had already deposited half of the amount and had furnished the security with respect to the remaining half of the amount. So, only a small amount remains to be recovered. Section 92 does not talk that a time barred amount cannot be recovered by coercive means. On the other hand, it contains summary procedure for recovering the amount due to the Panchayat. 11. It has been held in Ali Mohd. v. Ramnivas and others, AIR 1967 Rajasthan 258, that limitation of law is applied only to suits and the application and it is no bar to the pleas raised by way of defence. Therefore, in view of the discussion above, I hold that there is no force in the appeal and as such, the same is dismissed. Appeal dismissed.