JUDGMENT Mr. L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral): - Defendant Dalbir Singh having lost in both the courts below has filed the instant second appeal. 2. Respondents-plaintiffs Union of India and Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL) filed suit against defendant-appellant for recovery of Rs.62,896/- on the ground that defendant had obtained telephone connection from plaintiff no. 1 and did not pay the bills thereof amounting to Rs.35,982/-. Plaintiff no. 2 BSNL is successor-in-interest of plaintiff no. 1. Plaintiffs also claimed Rs 26,914/- as interest @ 12% per annum from due dates till before filing of suit. 3. The defendant appeared in the case but did not file any written statement and his defence was struck off. 4. Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Amritsar vide judgment and decree dated 23.8.2007 decreed the plaintiffs’ suit. First appeal preferred by the defendant-appellant has been partly allowed by learned District Judge, Amritsar vide judgment and decree dated 28.4.2008 and thereby judgment and decree of the trial court have been modified and the suit has been decreed for recovery of principal amount of Rs 33,982/- along with interest thereon @ 9% per annum with effect from 1.4.1997 till filing of the suit and interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing of suit till recovery. Feeling aggrieved, the defendant has filed the instant second appeal. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that telephone bills in question are of 1996-97 and therefore, the suit filed on 25.9.2003 is barred by limitation as limitation period for filing of suit on behalf of plaintiff no. 2 (a Company) was three years only. The contention although apparently attractive is devoid of merit. Plaintiff no. 2 came in existence with effect from 1.10.2000. Prior to it plaintiff no. 1 Union of India being the creditor was entitled to recover the suit amount and limitation period for filing suit by plaintiff no. 1 was 30 years and after coming into existence of plaintiff no. 2 BSNL with effect from 1.10.2000 the suit was filed within limitation period of three years and therefore, the suit is not barred by limitation. This view has been taken by this Court in various judgments. Unreported judgment dated 23.9.2008 in RSA No. 3817 of 2007, titled Rai Singh versus Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited may be referred to in this regard. This view has been taken by this Court in various judgments. Unreported judgment dated 23.9.2008 in RSA No. 3817 of 2007, titled Rai Singh versus Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited may be referred to in this regard. Consequently, the suit is held to be within limitation and the aforesaid contention is repelled. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant next contended that suit was not filed by authorized person. This contention is untenable in view of resolution Ex. PW2/2 passed by BSNL and in view of general power of attorney Ex. PW2/1 authorizing different officers to file suit on behalf of the plaintiffs. It is, thus, manifest that the suit has been filed through duly authorized persons. No other contention has been raised before me. Both the courts have arrived at concurrent finding in favour of the plaintiffs. The said finding is based on proper appreciation of evidence and is supported by cogent reasons and is not shown to be perverse or illegal so as to warrant interference in second appeal. No question of law much less substantial question of law arises for determination in the instant second appeal. The appeal is without any merit and is accordingly dismissed. 8. The instant second appeal was filed by the appellant as indigent person. Consequently in view of Order 33 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short, CPC) court fee payable on the second appeal is ordered to be recovered from the appellant. Copy of this order be sent to the Collector, Amritsar for recovery of the court fee amount as required by Order 33 Rule 14 CPC. -------------------