Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 1067 (ORI)

Deenabandhu Sahu v. Forest Ranger

2016-11-09

A.K.RATH

body2016
JUDGMENT : A.K. Rath, J. The plaintiff is the appellant against a reversing judgment. 2. The case of the plaintiff is that on 11.11.1984, the Forest Ranger, Samantiapalli Range, defendant no.1, seized 200 pieces of Piasal wood and 9 Beams from the temporary camp of the plaintiff. The plaintiff could not able to produce T.T Permit. Therefore, defendant no.1 lodged a prosecution against the plaintiff and one Uttam Kumar Sahu under Rule 21 of the Orissa Timber Transit Rules in the court of learned J.M.S.C., Berhampur, which was registered as 2(b)CC No.79 of 1984. By judgment dated 24.1.1987, the learned Judicial Magistrate acquitted Uttam Kumar Sahu, but convicted him and directed to return the seized article to him after the appeal period. Against the order of conviction, he filed Criminal Appeal No.34 of 1987 before the learned 2nd Addl. Sessions Judge, Berhampur. The learned lower appellate court acquitted him from all the charges. But then, the Range Officer had not returned the goods. He issued notice under Sec. 80 CPC demanding restoration of suit goods or value thereof. Since the defendants had not restored the seized wood nor paid its money, he instituted the suit for recovery of suit amount. 3. Pursuant to issuance of summons, defendants entered appearance denying the assertions made in the plaint. The specific case of the defendants is that the suit is barred by time. 4. On the inter se pleadings of the parties, the learned trial court framed as many as six issues. To substantiate the case, the plaintiff examined two witnesses and on his behalf eight documents were exhibited. On behalf of the defendants, one witness was examined and two documents were exhibited. Learned trial court came to hold that the defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay Rs.37,500/- with interest @ 6% P.A & P.F. The defendants filed appeal before the learned District Judge, Berhampur, which was subsequently transferred to the learned 1st Addl. District Judge, Berhampur and re-numbered as Money Appeal No.3 of 1997 (Money Appeal No.1/96 GDC). Learned Addl. District Judge came to hold that Article 69 Limitation Act provides the period of limitation is three years from the date when the property was wrongfully taken. The wood was wrongfully taken from the plaintiff on 11.11.1984. District Judge, Berhampur and re-numbered as Money Appeal No.3 of 1997 (Money Appeal No.1/96 GDC). Learned Addl. District Judge came to hold that Article 69 Limitation Act provides the period of limitation is three years from the date when the property was wrongfully taken. The wood was wrongfully taken from the plaintiff on 11.11.1984. By judgment dated 24.1.1987, the learned Judicial Magistrate held that the seizure was illegal, which amounts to wrongfully taking the property from the plaintiff. Even if sixty days period is excluded, which was required to serve notice under Sec. 80 CPC, the suit should have been filed by 17.2.1991. The suit was filed on 28.10.1991 and barred by time. Held so, learned lower appellate court allowed the appeal. 5. The second appeal was admitted on 10.4.2000 on the substantial questions of law enumerated in Ground Nos.1 and 2 in the appeal memo, which are as follows: “1. Whether the learned lower appellate court committed an error of law and procedure in holding that the suit is barred by law of limitation applying Article 69 of the Limitation Act, even though Article 69 of the Limitation Act is not at all applicable in a suit for recovery of money like present one. 2. Whether the learned lower appellate court misconstrued Section 69 of the Limitation Act and has applied the same in a suit for recovery of money even though Section 69 of the Limitation Act can be made applicable to a suit for recovery of goods but in the instant case the suit is for recovery of money and not goods.” 6. Mr. Budhadev Routray, learned Senior Advocate for the appellant, submitted that the suit has been filed for restoration of the goods or value thereof. The plaintiff has prayed for a decree of Rs.37,500/- with interest @ 6% P.A & P.F. Since it is a simple money suit, Article 69 Limitation Act does not apply. 7. Per contra, Mr. Panda, learned Addl. Government Advocate, supported the impugned judgment. He cited the decisions in the case of State of Punjab v. Joint Hindu Family Trading Firm Rati Ram Banwari Lal and another, AIR 1959 Punjab 173, Sankar Dastidar v. Smt. Banjula Dastidar and another, AIR 2007 SC 514 , A. Laxmipathi & another v. Andhra Pradesh State Final Corpn. Panda, learned Addl. Government Advocate, supported the impugned judgment. He cited the decisions in the case of State of Punjab v. Joint Hindu Family Trading Firm Rati Ram Banwari Lal and another, AIR 1959 Punjab 173, Sankar Dastidar v. Smt. Banjula Dastidar and another, AIR 2007 SC 514 , A. Laxmipathi & another v. Andhra Pradesh State Final Corpn. Ltd., Hyderabad & others, AIR 2009 Andhra Pradesh 7 and M/s. Disha Constructions & others v. State of Goa and another, AIR 2012 SC 1769 . 8. Before adverting to the contentions raised by the learned counsel for both the parties, it will necessary to set out some of the provisions of the Limitation Act. “”69 For other specific movable property Three years When the property is wrongfully taken.” xxx xxx xxx “91. For compensation,-(b) for wrongfully taking or injuring or wrongfully detaining wrongfully detaining any other specific movable property. Three years When the property is wrongfully taken or injured, or when the detainer’s possession becomes unlawful.” 9. Article 69 of the Limitation Act provides for suit for specific movable property; whereas Article 91 provides for compensation for wrongfully taking or injuring or wrongfully detaining any other specific movable property. In view of the fact that the wood was wrongfully taken from the plaintiff and the suit is for compensation of the value of goods, Article 91(b) will apply. The limitation for filing suit for compensation starts from when the property was wrongfully taken. Even if it is held that Article 69 of the Limitation Act will not apply in the facts and circumstances of the case, no relief can be granted to the plaintiff for the following reasons. 10. On a cursory perusal of the plaint, it is evident that different sizes of wood had been seized from the plaintiff. Thereafter, the Forest Ranger, Samantiapalli Range, defendant no.1, seized the goods on 11.11.1984 from the temporary camp of the plaintiff. Defendant no.1 lodged prosecution against the plaintiff and one Uttam Kumar Sahu for violation of Rule 21 of the Orissa Timber Transit Rules in the court of learned J.M.S.C., Berhampur, which was registered as 2(b)CC No. 79 of 1984. The learned Judicial Magistrate acquitted Uttam Kumar Sahu, but convicted the plaintiff and directed the complainant therein to return the seized article. 11. The learned Judicial Magistrate acquitted Uttam Kumar Sahu, but convicted the plaintiff and directed the complainant therein to return the seized article. 11. Thus the cause of action for the suit arose on 24.1.1987, i.e., the date of the judgment in 2(b)CC No.79 of 1984. Nothing precluded the plaintiff from instituting the suit after the judgment dated 24.1.1987. The period of limitation being three years, the suit ought to have been filed by 23.1.1990. But then, the suit was filed on 28.10.1991. Thus the suit is barred by time. 12. Entia non sunt multiplicanda sine necessitate (Things should not be multiplied without necessity) is a well known principle in the administration of justice. Since the decision of the appeal hinges on interpretation of Article 91 of the Limitation Act, this Court has not multiplied the authorities cited by the learned Addl. Government Advocate. 13. As a sequel to the above conclusion, the appeal is dismissed. No costs.