Judgment 1. The appellant is challenging the legality and correctness of the judgment passed in O.S.No.9118 of 2001, dated 2-12-2008 passed by the IX Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore. 2. The appellant was the plaintiff before the Court below. The suit was filed to recover a sum of Rs.42,00,000/-from the respondent. According to the plaint averments, the defendant was working as an Executive Engineer from 27-5-1994 to 31-1-1995 in Gulbarga Division. According to the plaintiff, though there was no necessity for the defendant to purchase several materials, he purchased unwanted materials during 27-5-1994 to 31-1-1995 and as a result of it, plaintiff suffered a loss to the tune of Rs.42 lakhs. The plaintiff issued a show-cause notice to the defendant on 19-10-1995 calling upon him to make good the loss. He sent untenable reply. Therefore, the suit was filed on 23-11-2001 for recovery of the aforesaid amount. 3. The defendant denied the averments made in the plaint. According to him, he did not purchase the materials show in the statement and that the plaintiff has not suffered any loss on account of the purchase made by him. According to him, he retired from service with effect from 31-1-1995 and charge was handed over to one Ravindra Bhat and Ravindra Bhat was working as an Executive Engineer from 31-1-1995 to 6-2-1995 and thereafter, one Mohammed Ghouse was posted as Executive Engineer and he died on 11-9-1995 in an accident and that the inspection was conducted behind his back between 17-8-1995 and 22-8-1995 and that the defendant has been falsely implicated after his retirement. Therefore, he is not answerable to the claim of the plaintiff. It was also contended that the suit filed by the plaintiff was barred by limitation. 4. Based on the above pleadings, the following issues and additional issue were framed by the Court below: “1. Whether plaintiff proves, that the defendant 1 who was earlier working as Executive Engineer in its Department at Gadag Division misused the office funds and purchased the materials ignoring codal rules thus accrued wrongful gain caused heavy financial loses to the plaintiff? 2. Whether the plaintiff proves, that due to the said malicious act of the defendant the board suffered a loss to the tune of Rs.42,00,000/-as such it is liable to recover the same from the defendant? 3. To what order and decree? 2. Whether the plaintiff proves, that due to the said malicious act of the defendant the board suffered a loss to the tune of Rs.42,00,000/-as such it is liable to recover the same from the defendant? 3. To what order and decree? Additional Issue: Whether the suit of the plaintiff is barred by limitation?” In order to prove the respective contentions, two witnesses were examined on behalf of the plaintiff as P.Ws.1 and 2 and plaintiffs relied upon Exs.P.1 to P.10. The defendant got himself examined as D.W.1. The Trial Court on considering the evidence let in by the parties answered additional issue in affirmative and came to the conclusion that the suit was barred by limitation and without answering the Issue Nos.1 and 2 dismissed the suit of the plaintiff on the ground of limitation. Challenging the legality and correctness of the judgment and decree of the Trial Court, the present appeal is filed. 5. The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant relied upon the judgment of this Court in H.S. Gururaja Rao v Presiding Officer, Debt Recovery Tribunal, Bangalore and Another (2000(5) Kar.L.J.151 (DB): ILR 2000 Kar.2525 (DB): AIR 2000 Kant.274 (DB)), contends that the Trial Court has committed an error in not answering the other issues and dismissal of the suit answering the question of limitation is bad in law. According to the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant, the Trial Court failed to note that the suit was not barred by limitation because under the KCSR Rules, the Government can initiate action against its employees after retirement and therefore, the Counsel requests the Court to set aside the judgment and decree and remand the matter to the Trial Court for a fresh consideration on all issues. 6. Having heard the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant, we have to consider the following two points: (i) Whether the suit filed by the plaintiff was well in time? (ii) Whether the judgment and decree of the Court below has to be set aside on the ground that the Trial Court has not answered all the issues? 7. Admittedly, the defendant who was working as an Executive Engineer under the plaintiff retired with effect from 31-1-1995. Even according to the plaint averments, the plaintiff has learnt the loss caused to it by the defendant when an inspection was conducted between 17-8-1995 and 22-8-1995. 7. Admittedly, the defendant who was working as an Executive Engineer under the plaintiff retired with effect from 31-1-1995. Even according to the plaint averments, the plaintiff has learnt the loss caused to it by the defendant when an inspection was conducted between 17-8-1995 and 22-8-1995. From the above averments, it is clear that for the first time the plaintiff has learnt the loss caused by the defendant in the month of August 1995 and a show-cause notice was also issued on 19-10-1995 calling upon the defendant to make good the loss. Therefore, it is clear that the cause of action has arisen for the plaintiff when it had learnt the loss caused to it during the course of inspection which was held between 17-8-1995 and 22-8-1995. Therefore, the plaintiff was required to file the suit within a period of three years, when the plaintiff had learnt the loss caused to it by the defendant. In the instant case, though a notice was got issued in October 1995, the suit is instituted on 23-11-2001 beyond six years from the date of knowledge or cause of action. 8. Admittedly, the suit can be filed within three years from the date of knowledge in order to recover the loss caused to the plaintiff. The KCSR does not extend the law of limitation to file a civil suit. KCSR enables the Government or statutory body or a Corporation to initiate disciplinary action either for dismissal from service or for recovery of the amount under the domestic enquiry or to initiate criminal action. A civil suit has to be instituted as per the provisions of the law of Limitation Act of 1963. Therefore, the contention of the appellant that the suit is well-within time cannot be accepted. The judgment relied upon by the learned Counsel appearing for the appellant is also of no assistance because their Lordships while considering the aforesaid case have clearly ruled that the Court can always dispose of the suit on the question of law and on the question of jurisdiction of a Court. In the instant case, the Trial Court has dismissed the suit on the ground of limitation which is a question of law. 9. In view of our findings, we are of the view that the appellant has no case on merits and accordingly, appeal is dismissed. The parties to bear their own costs.