Research › Search › Judgment

Tripura High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 147 (TRI)

Utpal Debray v. United Bank of India

2016-07-18

S.TALAPATRA

body2016
JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. S.M. Chakraborty, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. P. Sen, learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as Mr. D.R. Choudhury, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. This is an appeal from the judgment dated 14.02.2013 delivered in the Title Appeal No.17 of 2012 by the Additional District Judge, West Tripura, Agartala. 3. Mr. S.M. Chakraborty, learned senior counsel has submitted that the appellant instituted a suit for declaration with consequential relief including realisation of money amount to Rs.89,400/- as expenses of litigation as the plaintiff was implicated as the accused under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. by the trial judge in GR 115 of 1998. The said trial case being GR 115 of 1998 was initially being tried against one Ratan Chandra Das on the charge under Section 409 read with Section 447 of the IPC. In the chargesheet the appellant was cited as the witness as the transaction was carried through the United Bank of India where the appellant was part of the transaction as the officer of the said bank. Along with the appellant, two other persons namely Pranesh Chandra Das and Ranjit Chandra Choudhury were also made accused in the same manner. The charge was altered by way of addition of Section 34 of the IPC. 4. It appears from the judgment dated 29.06.2006 delivered in Criminal Appeal No.3(1) of 2006 that the appellant was convicted and he preferred the appeal under Section 374(3) of the Cr.P.C against the said judgment of conviction. in the court of the Addl. Sessions Judge, West Tripura, Khowai. It is undisputed fact that the appellant was acquitted and the said appellate court had occasion to observe for purpose of acquittal as under:- “I have also discussed the every pros and cons of the evidence on record how the money was misappropriated and by whom for which it is needless to repeat the appreciation of evidence further. Accordingly, I hold that the appellant Utpal Debroy deserves an order of acquittal in this case.” 5. Accordingly, I hold that the appellant Utpal Debroy deserves an order of acquittal in this case.” 5. Before coming to the said interference, the appellate court has elaborately given the reasons in para-23 by observing that the trial court in its judgment held that the accused Ratan Das in furtherance of the common intention with the accused Utpal Debray [the appellant herein] misappropriated the money and Utpal Debroy being the employee of the bank, had common intention with other bank employees acted for clearance of the Cheque No.824 and thus got involved in the alleged misappropriation as he shared the common intention with the accused Ratan Das. Since the Cheque No.824 was written in figure and words there was hardly any scope to raise any suspicion on the part of the bank employees. As such the act of clearance by the bank employee, Utpal Debroy 'cannot be considered as a foul play on his part'. If any other employee of the bank other than Utpal Debroy would have been in his position he would in normal course clear the cheque. So, by clearing the cheque the appellant committed no wrong. One thing to be noted as stated by the appellate court is that since the amount of misappropriation and the amount of draft is same i.e. Rs.8,50,000/-that might have confused the trial court which ultimately resulted in the conviction of the appellant, Sri Utpal Debroy. 6. The defendants also did not raise any objection regarding the interpretation of the judgment that no stigma in whatsoever manner has been attached to the appellant by the appellate court in order to acquitting him. The dispute has its origin in the episode when the appellant was implicated in the said criminal case and he prayed to the bank for bearing expenses of the defence. But the bank admittedly denied to defend the appellant in the criminal case by their letter dated 11.08.2005 (Exbt.5). For purpose of reference the passage which is relevant in this context is reproduced hereunder:- “On perusal of the matter, the Head Office has observed that in view of the contradictory statement given by you and ...... the Ld. Judge has found that prima facie case existed against you. Accordingly, Bank has decided not to defend the criminal case pending against you in the aforesaid matter.” So was the basis of denial. 7. the Ld. Judge has found that prima facie case existed against you. Accordingly, Bank has decided not to defend the criminal case pending against you in the aforesaid matter.” So was the basis of denial. 7. It is also admitted that the appellant did not take any action against the said decision as borne in the letter dated 11.08.2005. But after the said judgment by the appellate court was delivered, the appellant filed his prayer for leave against absence on account of the said case on 08.09.2006 (Exbt.6) and the entire period of leave of absence was finally treated as the sanctioned leave by the competent authority i.e. the Chief Regional Manager, United Bank of India by his letter dated 26.05.2007 (Exbt.8). Thereafter, the appellant by a notice of demand dated 21.08.2009 (Exbt.9) raised the claim for reimbursement of the expenses he incurred in defending himself in the proceeding. The said sum was ascertained at Rs.89,400/- and the claim was supported by the bills and receipts. In reply to that letter/demand of notice dated 21.08.2009, the bank stated in their letter dated 13.11.2009 (Exbt.10) that there is no scheme or rules or regulations for providing financial assistance to the award staff/employee of the bank in such cases. Therefore, the reason for denial was entirely distinguishable from the earlier reasons for rejecting the prayer for extending legal assistance to the appellant. 8. The appellant, being aggrieved, filed a representation to the Chief Regional Manager with all documents for reimbursing the expenses that incurred in defending him in the said criminal case. But that was also rejected by the Chief Regional Manager by his letter dated 21.08.2009 (Exbt.9). Thereafter, the plaintiff instituted the suit being Title Suit No. 62 of 2009 on 15.12.2009. By the suit, that the appellant asked for various reliefs, including the declaration of his status and also realisation of money to the extent of Rs.89,400/-. 9. The defendants by filing the written statement had admitted the entire pleadings in the plaint but denied the claim of the plaintiff, the appellant herein. The defendants also contended that on their behalf there had been no failure in discharging their official duty and such payment cannot be made as there exists no scheme under which such payment can be made to the plaintiff. The defendants however, raised no specific plea as to the limitation. The defendants also contended that on their behalf there had been no failure in discharging their official duty and such payment cannot be made as there exists no scheme under which such payment can be made to the plaintiff. The defendants however, raised no specific plea as to the limitation. Even though they stated that the suit was not legally maintainable in its form. The court of the first instance, the court of the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Court No.1, Agartala, West Tripura, for that reason may be, did not frame any specific issue on limitation. The trial court framed the following issues for purpose of adjudication in the suit: “(i) Whether the suit is maintainable? (ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the decree of cancellation and quashing of the decision of the defendants in the letter of Defendant No.2 dated 21.01.2008 and their reply of advocate notice dated 13.11.2009? (iii) Whether the Defendant No.1 has any vicarious liability to protect the interest of the plaintiff? (iv) Whether the decision of the defendants rejecting the claim of the plaintiff for reimbursement of the legal expenditure incurred by the plaintiff in defending himself is arbitrary, unreasonable and contrary to the principles of law? (v) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the decree as prayed for in this suit? (vi) Whether the parties are entitled to any other relief or reliefs in this suit?” 10. After the evidence was recorded, while appreciating the trial court observed as under: “In the light of the foregoing reasons, I hold that the United Bank of India (Defendant No.1) is vicariously liable to protect the interest of the plaintiff and its decision rejecting the claim of re-imbursement of legal expenses by the plaintiff is unjust and contrary to the principles of law. Accordingly, issue no.(iii) and (iv) are both decided in the affirmative and in favour of the plaintiff.” 11. Accordingly, issue no.(iii) and (iv) are both decided in the affirmative and in favour of the plaintiff.” 11. It is to be mentioned at this juncture that while deciding the issue No.(i) whether the suit is maintainable or not the trial court has observed that even though the trial court has the jurisdiction, but the suit being a suit for declaration with consequential relief and for realisation of money the suit has to be governed by the Article 58 of the Limitation Act, 1963 which stipulates the period of limitation to be 3(three) years for purpose of declaration and the time would run when the right to sue first accrued. Thereafter, the trial court had returned the finding as under: “In the case at hand, the right to sue first accrued to the plaintiff on 11.05.2005 when his written request to the Chief Regional Manager, United Bank of India, Tripura Regional Office seeking permission to engage a lawyer for his defence at the cost of his employer United Bank of India was turned down. However, the present suit has been filed in 2009 i.e. after the period of limitation had expired. Therefore, this suit is clearly barred by limitation.” 12. Thus, even though the trial court has declared that the plaintiff was entitled to get the relief but the same could not be given as the suit was found to be barred by limitation. Being aggrieved by the said judgment dated 17.03.2012, delivered in Title Suit No.62 of 2009, the appellant filed an appeal under Section 96 of the Cr.P.C. in the court of the District Judge, West Tripura, Agartala. The said appeal being Title Appeal No.17 of 2012, in the course of time was transferred to the court of the Additional District Judge, West Tripura, Agartala (Court No.5). By the judgment dated 14.02.2013, hereinafter referred to as the impugned judgment, the first appellate court affirmed the finding of the trial court on issues No.(iii), (iv) and (v) and dismissed the appeal on observing that the suit was barred by limitation. But according to the first appellate court, the suit was supposed to be governed by Article 113 of the Limitation Act, 1963. For giving its own reasons, the first appellate court observed that in the para-8.3 as under: “8.3 Ld. Trial Court applied the provision of Art.58 of the schedule to the Indian Limitation Act. But according to the first appellate court, the suit was supposed to be governed by Article 113 of the Limitation Act, 1963. For giving its own reasons, the first appellate court observed that in the para-8.3 as under: “8.3 Ld. Trial Court applied the provision of Art.58 of the schedule to the Indian Limitation Act. Art. 58 prescribes limitation period of three years from the date when the right to sue first accrued for the purpose of filing of suit to obtain a declaration, which is not otherwise specified. But as it appears, the present suit is not purely a declaratory suit. The primary relief sought by the appellant was to get reimbursement of the expenditure incurred by him in defending said criminal case. Though, he prayed for some declarations in prayer nos.(a) to (c) of the prayer portion of the schedule of plaint as mentioned above, but those declarations were not so much important or vital for due decision of the case. Even without seeking such declarations also, the appellant could directly approach the Court simply with a prayer for money decree by way of indemnification. Thus, Art.58 of the Limitation Act is thus not applicable in this case. The relevant Article in Limitation Act is, therefore, required to be searched out in the contexts of relevant provision of Indian Contract Act dealing with the matter of law of agency. On a close study of different Articles of schedule to the said Limitation Act, the below noted provisions are found relevant for discussion and these are- Description of suit Period of limitation Time from which period begins to run 3. By a principal against his agent for movable property received by the latter and not accounted for. Three years When the account is, during the continuance of the agency, demanded and refused or, where no such demand is made, when the agency terminates 4. Other suits by principals agents for neglect or misconduct. Three years When the neglect or misconduct becomes known to the plaintiff 113. Any suit for which no period of limitation is provided elsewhere in this Schedule. Other suits by principals agents for neglect or misconduct. Three years When the neglect or misconduct becomes known to the plaintiff 113. Any suit for which no period of limitation is provided elsewhere in this Schedule. Three years When the right to sue accrues In the Schedule of the Indian Limitation Act, there are only two articles viz Art.3 and Art.4 which deal with the suit in between principal and agent as mentioned above and both these two Articles are inapplicable in the instant case in hand. So, the general provision as prescribed under Art.113 will be applicable in the present suit. As per said Art.113, period of three years will be the period of limitation to be reckoned from the date when the right to sue accrues. Here the basic claim of the appellant is reimbursement of the expenditure by the way of indemnification. This right of indemnification or reimbursement has first arisen when he was acquitted from that criminal case by Ld. Additional Sessions Judge, West Tripura, Khowai on 29.06.2006 when for the first time, Ld. Court observed that there was no malafide transaction on his part in the said matter of alleged defalcation. So, his right to sue first accrued for seeking such relief of reimbursement only with effect from 29.06.2006, but the suit was filed on 15.12.2009 i.e. the suit was filed after expiry of period of three years. So, automatically, the suit has been rendered as time barred. Thus, the reasoning so given by Ld. Trial Court holding the suit to be time barred though does not in concurrence with the reasoning given by this Court as discussed above, but fact remains the suit is time barred one. When, it has already been held that the suit is time barred one. When, it has already been held that the suit was time barred, no so further discussion is necessary in respect of quantum of compensation by way of indemnification which the appellant would be entitled, if the suit would be entitled, if the suit would not be time barred. The point is decided accordingly against the appellant.” 13. When, it has already been held that the suit was time barred, no so further discussion is necessary in respect of quantum of compensation by way of indemnification which the appellant would be entitled, if the suit would be entitled, if the suit would not be time barred. The point is decided accordingly against the appellant.” 13. The said finding of the first appellate court has been challenged in the appeal filed under Section 100 of the CPC which was admitted by the order dated 03.06.2013 on the following substantial question of law: “Whether the appellate court by the impugned judgment has committed illegality by not considering the date of denial of the relief to the plaintiff by the respondents, as established by the appellant in the evidence as the relevant day of commencement for limitation?” 14. Mr. S. M. Chakraborty, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant has further submitted that even if the suit is governed by Article 113 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the appellate court has miserably failed to ascertain the day when the right to sue accrued. According to Mr. Chakraborty, learned senior counsel since there is no extant right under any protocol/rules/regulations or there is no such declaration that the act of the defendants by which the denial of the claim is to be treated, the day when right to sue has accrued, that date is to be taken as the relevant date for running the account of limitation. Hence, the suit is very much within the period of limitation. So far the other issues are concerned, those have been decided in favour of the plaintiff. There had been no challenge by the defendants by means of the first appeal. Now, the defendants cannot raise their objection even under Order XLI, Rule 22 of the CPC so far those findings are concerned, those have reached their finality by way of affirmation. Though Mr. Chakraborty, learned senior counsel did not fail to indicate that the affirmation was not sought by the plaintiff-appellant but that was done by the court. Virtually there was no appeal against the findings as returned on issues (iii), (iv) and (v). The appeal was only against the findings as returned by the trial court on issue No.(i). In support of his contention, Mr. Virtually there was no appeal against the findings as returned on issues (iii), (iv) and (v). The appeal was only against the findings as returned by the trial court on issue No.(i). In support of his contention, Mr. Chakraborty, learned senior counsel has relied on a decision of the apex court in Swamy Atmananda and Others vs. Sri Ramakrishna Tapovanam and Others reported in (2005) 10 SCC 51 where the apex court while dealing with the issue of cause of action, meaning the accrual for purpose of limitation or when the right accrued, it has been observed by the apex court that cause of action implies the fact or combination of facts which give rise to a right or action. In Black's Law Dictionary it has been stated that the expression, cause of action, is the fact or facts which give a person a right to judicial relief. In Stroud's Judicial Dictionary, a cause of action is stated to be the entire set of facts that give rise to an enforceable claim; the phrase comprises every fact which, if traversed the plaintiff must prove in order to obtain judgment. In the following passage, the apex court has further observed the issue as under: “A Cause of action, thus, means every fact, which, if traversed, it would be necessary for the plaintiff to prove in order to support his right to a judgment of the court. In other words, it is a bundle of facts which taken with the law applicable to them gives the plaintiff a right to relief against the defendant. It must include some act done by the defendant since in the absence of such an act no cause of action can possibly accrue. It is not limited to the actual infringement of the right sued on but includes all the material facts on which it is founded.” 15. Mr. Chakraborty, learned senior counsel has contended therefore that when the defendants by their act of refusal denied the plaintiff to give reimbursement, it can be said that the right to sue accrued on that day. Mr. Chakraborty, learned senior counsel has therefore prayed that the impugned judgment is fundamentally flawed. The day when right to sue accrued was wrongly applied and as a result the impugned judgment has caused serious miscarriage of justice. 16. In order to refute such submission made by Mr. Chakraborty, learned senior counsel, Mr. Mr. Chakraborty, learned senior counsel has therefore prayed that the impugned judgment is fundamentally flawed. The day when right to sue accrued was wrongly applied and as a result the impugned judgment has caused serious miscarriage of justice. 16. In order to refute such submission made by Mr. Chakraborty, learned senior counsel, Mr. D.R. Choudhury, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has submitted that the trial court has decided the issue No.(i) without infirmity, inasmuch as the defendant-respondents had decided that they would not bear any responsibility in any manner as regards, defending the plaintiff-appellant. By Exbt.5, they had categorically communicated their decision. But the plaintiff remained silent over the said act of the defendants. Now, when the period of limitation had expired the plaintiff-appellant ventured to institute the suit in question. According to him, if the right to sue is to be determined by the act of the defendants that arose when the defendants through their Regional Manager communicated their decision that the bank had decided not to defend the criminal case pending against the appellant. The plaintiff had a right to sue against the defendants but he had not acted on that denial but waited till the disposal of the criminal appeal as stated. 17. Again, Mr. Choudhury, learned counsel appearing for the respondents placed an alternative submission from a different angle without admitting but assuming that the plaintiff has a fresh cause of action in view of the judgment passed in the criminal appeal and again the right to sue accrued on that day, not afterwards. If that day is taken as the cause for institution of the suit, the suit has been filed much after the expiry of the limitation as the said judgment was passed on 29.06.2006 whereas the suit is instituted on 15.12.2009. Mr. Choudhury, learned counsel has submitted that there is no infirmity in the impugned judgment inasmuch as even if the suit is filtered through the provision of Article 113 of the Limitation Act, 1963 and the right to sue is considered in the light of the decision taken by the defendants as reflected in the Exbt.5 and or by the date of the criminal [appellate] judgment, the suit is still barred by limitation. To bolster his submission Mr. To bolster his submission Mr. Choudhury, learned counsel has placed his reliance on a decision of the apex court in State of Punjab and Another vs. Balkaran Singh reported in (2006) 12 SCC 709 where it has been observed that: “16. It was argued on behalf of the plaintiffs, as was done in trial court, that the cause of action must be held to be a recurring one and hence the suit must be held to be not barred by limitation. Reliance was placed on the decision in Amrit Lal Berry Vs. CCE, (1975) 4 SCC 714 . That decision arose from a proceeding under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. It was not a suit. There was no occasion for this Court to consider the scope of Article 58 of the Limitation Act in that Writ Petition. It was only stated that when a citizen aggrieved by the action of the government department had approached the Court and obtained declaration of law in his favour, others, in like circumstances, should be able to rely on the sense of responsibility of the department concerned and to expect that they will be given the benefit of this declaration without the need to take their grievance to the court. This is hardly a defence to a plea based on Article 58 of the Limitation Act in respect of the relief of declaration with respect to an order which was issued twelve years prior to the suit and which immediately affected the pay receivable by them. In fact this Court in S.S. Rathore vs. State of M.P., (1989) 4 SCC 582 , a decision rendered by seven Hon'ble Judges, has clearly held in suits relating to service matters, that "yet, suits outside the purview of the Administrative Tribunals Act shall continue to be governed by Article 58". In a series of subsequent decisions, this Court has held that a suit for declaration in matters relating to a service is governed by Article 58 of the Limitation Act, 1963. (See for instance, Mohd. Quaramuddin Vs. State of A.P. : (1994) 5 SCC 118 , Vasant Ramchandara Deshpande Vs. State of Maharashtra : (1997) 11 SCC 305 , Rajasthan SRTC Vs. Nand Lal : 1999 SCC (L & S) 658. In State of Punjab Vs. (See for instance, Mohd. Quaramuddin Vs. State of A.P. : (1994) 5 SCC 118 , Vasant Ramchandara Deshpande Vs. State of Maharashtra : (1997) 11 SCC 305 , Rajasthan SRTC Vs. Nand Lal : 1999 SCC (L & S) 658. In State of Punjab Vs. Gurdev Singh : (1991) 4 SCC 1 , a three judge Bench of this Court held that a party aggrieved by the order, even if it is found to be void, has to approach the court for relief of declaration that the order against him is inoperative and void within three years of the order. It is one thing to say that the plaintiffs might make a claim that they must also be paid in future at the revised scale of pay of Rs.1200-1850/-in view of the decision rendered in favour of another officer of the same department. But that does not enable them to revive a claim for the relief of declaration which had become long ago barred. A cause of action once barred does not get revived in such a case. Moreover, the decree that was granted in that case was only to the effect that the plaintiff therein was entitled to the scale of pay of Rs.1200-1850/-with effect from 1.1.1978, which was attached to the post of Deputy Director of Agriculture instead of at Rs.940-1850/-. As we have indicated that was not a suit in which Order I Rule 8 of Code of Civil Procedure was invoked and there was no declaration granted that the endorsement or order dated 13.3.1980 was illegal and void, the prayer for which is made in the first two suits. It may be noticed that Suit No.461 of 1991 was concerned more with the effect of various disciplinary proceedings initiated against the plaintiff therein on the claim made by him in that suit. We are therefore constrained to hold that the relief of declaration sought for by the plaintiffs in the first two suits is clearly barred by limitation.” 18. From the rival contention as extended by the learned counsel for the parties and in view of the substantial question of law this court is confronted with the following two questions: (i) Whether there was a fresh cause of action in favour of the plaintiff after the criminal appellate court passed its judgment? From the rival contention as extended by the learned counsel for the parties and in view of the substantial question of law this court is confronted with the following two questions: (i) Whether there was a fresh cause of action in favour of the plaintiff after the criminal appellate court passed its judgment? and (ii) Whether the right to sue accrued on the day of delivery of the criminal appellate court judgment or on the date when the defendants through their Chief Regional Manager rejected the claim of the petitioner on 21.01.2008? 19. For purpose of reproduction of the pleadings or to make the summary, the oral or documentary evidence is not at all necessary inasmuch as all the relevant facts are admitted by the parties. It is a matter which fundamentally relates to interpretation or selection of the relevant fact. By the Exbt.5 letter, the ground for rejection as assigned was that there was a prima facie case against the plaintiff-appellant and as such the defendants denied to provide him any sort of assistance including financial assistance and it is admitted position that on the face of such rejection of his claim the plaintiff did not take any action at law against the defendants by way of filing or instituting the suit. Therefore, unless there is a fresh cause of action in favour of the plaintiff, there cannot be any amount of doubt that the plaintiff is prevented from instituting a suit on the same cause of action as was discarded by the defendants by Exbt.5. 20. On appreciation of the fact, what has emerged is that the appellant was not only acquitted from the charge but the appellate court by the judgment under reference, has categorically observed that he had no involvement at all in the transaction. Even no malafide intention can be attributed meaning thereby, there was not even a prima facie case against the appellant. Thus, a fresh cause of action in view of the said finding arose in favour of the plaintiff, as the assumed existence of a prima facie case was completely erased by the appellate court judgment. In this context, now this court is only inclined to decide whether the right to sue accrued on the day when the appellate court judgment was delivered or on the day when the Chief Regional Manager rejected the appellant's claim. 21. In this context, now this court is only inclined to decide whether the right to sue accrued on the day when the appellate court judgment was delivered or on the day when the Chief Regional Manager rejected the appellant's claim. 21. It is admitted by the parties in their respective pleadings that there is no statute in the form of rules or regulations or protocol to extend such benefit in favour of the plaintiff-appellant. As such, the appellant has no existing right to exercise or to claim based thereon. The plaintiff raised two claims after his acquittal, namely (i) for granting leave for the days of absence which was consumed for his participation in the criminal trial etc. and (ii) for reimbursement of a sum of Rs.89,400/- which he incurred in conducting the defence. 22. It is also admitted that the first relief was granted by the defendants in favour of the plaintiff. By that conduct there cannot be any dilemma in the mind of the court that the defendants have impliedly accepted that there was a fresh cause of action because a new situation emerged for the acquittal without any stigma against the appellant. But the defendants denied the second relief for which the plaintiff finally has filed the suit for declaration of his right as there did not exist any right in his favour. Thus, it cannot be held that on the day of the delivery of the appellate judgment, the right to sue accrued. In the decision as relied by Mr. Choudhury, learned counsel appearing for the respondents in State of Punjab and Another vs. Balkaran Singh, the apex court has decided that ratio in the context that the plaintiff had the statutory right but he slept over his right without approaching the court. But in this case, there is a distinguishable feature, for absence of such statutory right in favour of the plaintiff as stated. Thus this court is of the considered view that the right to sue accrued on the day when the Chief Regional Manager finally rejected the plaintiff's claim by way of his letter dated 31.01.2008 (Exbt.13). As such, the suit has to be treated within the time of limitation, if it is considered so in view of provisions of Article 113 of the Limitation Act. Hence, the appellant is entitled to get the relief as is claimed in the suit. As such, the suit has to be treated within the time of limitation, if it is considered so in view of provisions of Article 113 of the Limitation Act. Hence, the appellant is entitled to get the relief as is claimed in the suit. Thus it is declared that the appellant is entitled to get the reimbursement of the expenses as he has incurred for defending him in the said criminal case and the expenses incurred is supported by the documentary evidence at Exbt.11(a) to 11(e). The defendants did not question that evidence, nor adduced any evidence in rebuttal in this regard. 23. The plaintiff is entitled to get the reimbursement of the sum of Rs.89,000/- (rupees eighty nine thousand) from the defendants as the expenses of the litigation as stated. Hence, the defendants are directed to pay the said sum to the plaintiff-appellant within a period of 4(four) months from today else the said amount shall carry interest @9% interest from the day of institution of the suit as stated till the payment is made. 24. In the result, the appeal stands allowed with costs. Draw the decree accordingly. Send down the LCRs thereafter.