Research › Search › Judgment

Tripura High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 121 (TRI)

Gautam Majumder v. State of Tripura

2022-03-11

ARINDAM LODH, S.G.CHATTOPADHYAY

body2022
JUDGMENT Arindam Lodh, J. - Heard Mr. P. Roy Barman, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. K. Nath, learned counsel for the appellants as well as Mr. D. Sarma, learned Additional GA appearing for respondents no. 1 and 2 and Mr. K. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 3, TRTC. 2. All the appeals being RFA 43 of 2019; RFA 44 of 2019 and RFA 45 of 2019 are taken up for disposal by a common judgment since common questions of law and facts are involved in these appeals. 3. These appeals have been filed by the plaintiff-appellants under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 against the judgments and decrees dated 03.09.2019 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Court no. 2, West Tripura, Agartala in case Nos. M.S. 31 of 2016; M.S. 32 of 2016 and M.S. 33 of 2016 respectively, claiming for declaration that the plaintiff in RFA 43 of 2019 is entitled to recover Rs. 13,99,012/-; plaintiff in RFA 44 of 2019 is entitled to recover Rs. 11,89,591/-, and plaintiff in RFA 45 of 2019 is entitled to recover Rs. 12,78,290/- alongwith interest.. 4. Relevant facts sans unnecessary details may be reproduced here-in- below, as projected by the learned trial court: RFA 43 of 2019 (M.S. 31 of 2016): '1. This is a suit for realization of money amounting to Rs. 13,99,012/- filed under section 5 of CPC. The suit is valued at Rs. 13,99,012/- and maximum court fees of Rs. 10,000/- has been paid. 2. The brief facts of the plaint are that on 26.10.2004 the State Transport Authority (defendant no. 2 of the suit) had issued a notice inviting applications from interested Transport and Bus operators to obtain route permit for Inter State Bus Service on reciprocal arrangement basis and imposed a condition in the said notice that the applicant bus operators have to obtain No Objection Certificate from the defendant no. 3 which is a PSU of the Government of Tripura. The plaintiff was one of such applicant bus operators and another two persons namely Ananta Ghosh and Kalyan Brata Deb were also engaged in the business of transport. 3 which is a PSU of the Government of Tripura. The plaintiff was one of such applicant bus operators and another two persons namely Ananta Ghosh and Kalyan Brata Deb were also engaged in the business of transport. The above mentioned notice dated 26.10.2004 issued by the State Transport Authority was challenged before the Hon'ble High Court of Tripura by said Ananta Ghosh and Kalyan Brata Deb in two separate writ petitions filed by them which were registered as WP(C) 62/2005 renumbered WP(C) 101/2010 and WP(C) 95/2005 renumbered as WP(C) 102/2010. The implications of the notice dated 26.10.2004 issued by the defendant no. 2 was that after the implementation of this policy no private bus operators shall be able to ply their buses in the Inter-State route from Tripura without obtaining the no objection certificate from defendant no. 3 and due to this reason it was challenged before the Hon'ble High Court which ultimately came up for decision on 27.05.2013. Considering the common question raised in both the writ petitions the Hon'ble High Court had clubbed both the writ petitions together and passed a common judgment on 27.05.2013 and declared that the notice is bad in law and accordingly liable to be declared inoperative for all purposes. But the defendant no. 3 in the proceeding of the said writ petitions had informed the Hon'ble High Court that by the time of disposal of the writ petitions the State Government had already abandoned that policy. After the disposal of the writ petitions by the Hon'ble High Court the plaintiff sent a legal notice to the defendants in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court. The defendants however stopped realizing any payment from the plaintiff for obtaining NOC from the defendant no. 3. It is stated by the plaintiff that defendant no. 3 had illegally realized money from the plaintiff for obtaining NOC for Inter State Bus Service from 2005 to 2013 and by that period an amount of Rs. 4,84,012/- and Rs. 15,000/- were illegally realized for agreement purpose. As per the averments of the plaint due to the said illegal notice dated 26.10.2004 the defendant no. 3 did not issue route permit to the plaintiff as the plaintiff did not agree to make payment to the defendant No. 3. 4,84,012/- and Rs. 15,000/- were illegally realized for agreement purpose. As per the averments of the plaint due to the said illegal notice dated 26.10.2004 the defendant no. 3 did not issue route permit to the plaintiff as the plaintiff did not agree to make payment to the defendant No. 3. So, with effect from 01.02.2005 to 30.07.2005 and again from 01.10.2006 to 30.11.2007 plaintiff could not ply his buses and the defendants have illegally caused loss of earnings by preventing the interstate bus service by the plaintiff from 01.02.2005 to 30.07.2005 and 01.10.2006 to 30.11.2007 for twenty months. As a result, the plaintiff had suffered loss of earning to the tune of Rs. 45000/- per month i.e. Rs. 9,00,000/- for twenty months. On 10.07.2013 the plaintiff along with others issued a legal notice to the defendants to stop collecting payment for issuance of no objection certificate by the defendant no. 3 in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court. But getting no relief the plaintiff and his companions filed a writ petition WP(C) 302/2013 before the Hon'ble High Court of Tripura which was disposed of on 23.09.2013 in terms of the judgment passed in WP(C) 101/2010 and WP (C) 102/2010. It is stated by the plaintiff that only on 27.05.2013 when the writ petitions came up for final hearing before the Hon'ble High Court the defendants have submitted before the Hon'ble High Court that the writ petitions have come infructuous as the entire scheme has been abandoned by the State Government. On 22.04.2016 the plaintiff had issued a notice under section 80(1) of CPC to the defendants demanding the claim of his money and also stating that on failure of payment by the defendants the plaintiff has instituted this suit. As per the averments of the plaint the cause of action of this suit arose on 22.04.2016 i.e. from the date of expiry of the notice under section 80 (1) of CPC. Hence, the plaintiff has instituted this suit for realization of his monetary claim. 3. Defendant No. 1 and 2 in their written statement have challenged the maintainability of this suit by stating that the cause of action of this suit is invalid and the suit is barred by the law of limitation. Hence, the plaintiff has instituted this suit for realization of his monetary claim. 3. Defendant No. 1 and 2 in their written statement have challenged the maintainability of this suit by stating that the cause of action of this suit is invalid and the suit is barred by the law of limitation. It is stated that in the plaint there is no averment regarding the specific date of arising out of the cause of action and no cause of action can arise from the date of issuance of legal notice. The Hon'ble High Court did not give any direction about the notification and did not interfere due to the changed situation. The Hon'ble High Court has only held that the notification dated 26.10.2004 is inoperative. Plaintiff has not made in any payment to the defendant No. 1 and 2 and defendant No. 1 and 2 have been unnecessarily made party in this suit. It is also stated by the defendant No. 1 and 2 that though the plaintiff has instituted this suit for realization of money but in the prayer portion of the plaint he has sought for a declaration and as such the suit is not filed proper form. However, the defendant no. 1 and 2 have admitted that a notice was issued on 26.10.2004 by the Secretary of the State Transport Authority for taking no objection certificate from the defendant no. 3 for obtaining route permit for interstate bus service. It is further stated by the defendant no. 1 and 2 that no adverse order was passed against the State of Tripura by the Hon'ble High Court and the Hon'ble High court did not interfere in the said notice dated 26.10.2004. As such the plaintiff can not take any benefit arising out of any observation made in the Judgment of the Hon'ble High Court. Thus, the principle plea of the defendant no. 1 and 2 against this suit is on the ground of bar of limitation.' RFA 44 of 2019 (M.S. 32 of 2016): '1. This is a suit for realization of money amounting to Rs. 11,89,451/- filed under section 5 of CPC. The suit is valued at Rs. 11,89,451/- and maximum court fees of Rs. 10,000/- has been paid. 2. The brief facts of the plaint are that on 26.10.2004 the State Transport Authority (defendant no. This is a suit for realization of money amounting to Rs. 11,89,451/- filed under section 5 of CPC. The suit is valued at Rs. 11,89,451/- and maximum court fees of Rs. 10,000/- has been paid. 2. The brief facts of the plaint are that on 26.10.2004 the State Transport Authority (defendant no. 2 of the suit) had issued a notice inviting applications from interested Transport and Bus operators to obtain route permit for Inter State Bus Service on reciprocal arrangement basis and imposed a condition in the said notice that the applicant bus operators have to obtain No Objection Certificate from the defendant no. 3 which is a PSU of the Government of Tripura. The plaintiff was one of such applicant bus operators and another two persons namely Ananta Ghosh and Kalyan Brata Deb were also engaged in the business of transport. The above mentioned notice dated 26.10.2004 issued by the State Transport Authority was challenged before the Hon'ble High Court of Tripura by said Ananta Ghosh and Kalyan Brata Deb in two separate writ petitions filed by them which were registered as WP(C) 62/2005 renumbered WP(C) 101/2010 and WP(C) 95/2005 renumbered as WP(C) 102/2010. The implications of the notice dated 26.10.2004 issued by the defendant no. 2 was that after the implementation of this policy no private bus operators shall be able to ply their buses in the Inter-State route from Tripura without obtaining the no objection certificate from defendant no. 3 and due to this reason it was challenged before the Hon'ble High Court which ultimately came up for decision on 27.05.2013. Considering the common question raised in both the writ petitions the Hon'ble High Court had clubbed both the writ petitions together and passed a common judgment on 27.05.2013 and declared that the notice is bad in law and accordingly liable to be declared inoperative for all purposes. But the defendant no. 3 in the proceeding of the said writ petitions had informed the Hon'ble High Court that by the time of disposal of the writ petitions the State Government had already abandoned that policy. After the disposal of the writ petitions by the Hon'ble High Court the plaintiff sent a legal notice to the defendants in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court. The defendants however stopped realizing any payment from the plaintiff for obtaining NOC from the defendant no. 3. After the disposal of the writ petitions by the Hon'ble High Court the plaintiff sent a legal notice to the defendants in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court. The defendants however stopped realizing any payment from the plaintiff for obtaining NOC from the defendant no. 3. It is stated by the plaintiff that defendant No. 3 had illegally realized money from the plaintiff for obtaining NOC for interstate bus service from 2005 to 2013 and by that period an amount of Rs. 7,92,451/- and Rs. 15,000/- were illegally realized for agreement purpose. As per the averments of the plaint due to the said illegal notice dated 26.10.2004 the defendant no. 3 did not issue route permit to the plaintiff as the plaintiff did not agree to make payment to the defendant No. 3. So, with effect from 24.11.2004 to 08.08.2005 for 8 months 15 days plaintiff could not ply her buses and the defendants have illegally caused loss of earnings by preventing the interstate bus service by the plaintiff from 24.11.2004 to 08.08.2005. As a result, the plaintiff had suffered loss of earning to the tune of Rs. 11,89,951/- with interest @ 12% per annum. On 10.07.2013 the plaintiff along with others issued a legal notice to the defendants to stop collecting payment for issuance of no objection certificate by the defendant no. 3 in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court. But getting no relief the plaintiff and his companions filed a writ petition WP(C) 302/2013 before the Hon'ble High Court of Tripura which was disposed of on 23.09.2013 in terms of the judgment passed in WP(C) 101/2010 and WP (C) 102/2010. It is stated by the plaintiff that only on 27.05.2013 when the writ petitions came up for final hearing before the Honb'le High Court the defendants have submitted before the Hon'ble High Court that the writ petitions have come infructuous as the entire scheme has been abandoned by the State Government. On 22.04.2016 the plaintiff had issued a notice under section 80(1) of CPC to the defendants demanding the claim of his money and also stating that on failure of payment by the defendants the plaintiff has instituted this suit. As per the averments of the plaint the cause of action of this suit arose on 22.04.2016 i.e. from the date of expiry of the notice under section 80 (1) of CPC. As per the averments of the plaint the cause of action of this suit arose on 22.04.2016 i.e. from the date of expiry of the notice under section 80 (1) of CPC. Hence, the plaintiff has instituted this suit for realization of her monetary claim. 3. Defendant No. 1 and 2 in their written statement have challenged the maintainability of this suit by stating that the cause of action of this suit is invalid and the suit is barred by the law of limitation. It is stated that in the plaint there is no averment regarding the specific date of arising out of the cause of action and no cause of action can arise from the date of issuance of legal notice. The Hon'ble High Court did not give any direction about the notification and did not interfere due to the changed situation. The Hon'ble High Court has only held that the notification dated 26.10.2004 is inoperative. Plaintiff has not made in any payment to the defendant No. 1 and 2 and defendant No. 1 and 2 have been unnecessarily made party in this suit. It is also stated by the defendant No. 1 and 2 that though the plaintiff has instituted this suit for realization of money but in the prayer portion of the plaint he has sought for a declaration and as such the suit is not filed proper form. However, the defendant no. 1 and 2 have admitted that a notice was issued on 26.10.2004 by the Secretary of the State Transport Authority for taking no objection certificate from the defendant no. 3 for obtaining route permit for interstate bus service. It is further stated by the defendant no. 1 and 2 that no adverse order was passed against the State of Tripura by the Hon'ble High Court and the Hon'ble High court did not interfere in the said notice dated 26.10.2004. As such the plaintiff can not take any benefit arising out of any observation made in the Judgment of the Hon'ble High Court. Thus, the principle plea of the defendant no. 1 and 2 against this suit is on the ground of bar of limitation.' RFA 45 of 2019 (M.S. 33 of 2016): '1. This is a suit for realization of money amounting to Rs. 12,78,290/- filed under section 5 of CPC. The suit is valued at Rs. 12,78,290/- and maximum court fees of Rs. 1 and 2 against this suit is on the ground of bar of limitation.' RFA 45 of 2019 (M.S. 33 of 2016): '1. This is a suit for realization of money amounting to Rs. 12,78,290/- filed under section 5 of CPC. The suit is valued at Rs. 12,78,290/- and maximum court fees of Rs. 10,000/- has been paid. 2. The brief facts of the plaint are that on 26.10.2004 the State Transport Authority (defendant no. 2 of the suit) had issued a notice inviting applications from interested Transport and Bus operators to obtain route permit for Inter State Bus Service on reciprocal arrangement basis and imposed a condition in the said notice that the applicant bus operators have to obtain No Objection Certificate from the defendant no. 3 which is a PSU of the Government of Tripura. The plaintiff was one of such applicant bus operators and another two persons namely Ananta Ghosh and Kalyan Brata Deb were also engaged in the business of transport. The above mentioned notice dated 26.10.2004 issued by the State Transport Authority was challenged before the Hon'ble High Court of Tripura by said Ananta Ghosh and Kalyan Brata Deb in two separate writ petitions filed by them which were registered as WP(C) 62/2005 renumbered WP(C) 101/2010 and WP(C) 95/2005 renumbered as WP(C) 102/2010. The implications of the notice dated 26.10.2004 issued by the defendant no. 2 was that after the implementation of this policy no private bus operators shall be able to ply their buses in the Inter-State route from Tripura without obtaining the no objection certificate from defendant no. 3 and due to this reason it was challenged before the Hon'ble High Court which ultimately came up for decision on 27.05.2013. Considering the common question raised in both the writ petitions the Hon'ble High Court had clubbed both the writ petitions together and passed a common judgment on 27.05.2013 and declared that the notice is bad in law and accordingly liable to be declared inoperative for all purposes. But the defendant no. 3 in the proceeding of the said writ petitions had informed the Hon'ble High Court that by the time of disposal of the writ petitions the State Government had already abandoned that policy. But the defendant no. 3 in the proceeding of the said writ petitions had informed the Hon'ble High Court that by the time of disposal of the writ petitions the State Government had already abandoned that policy. After the disposal of the writ petitions by the Hon'ble High Court the plaintiff sent a legal notice to the defendants in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court. The defendants however stopped realizing any payment from the plaintiff for obtaining NOC from the defendant no. 3. It is stated by the plaintiff that defendant No. 3 had illegally realized money from the plaintiff for obtaining NOC for interstate bus service from 2005 to 2013 and by that period an amount of Rs. 8,80,790/- and Rs. 15,000/- were illegally realized for agreement purpose. As per the averments of the plaint due to the said illegal notice dated 26.10.2004 the defendant no. 3 did not issue route permit to the plaintiff as the plaintiff did not agree to make payment to the defendant No. 3. So, with effect from 24.11.2004 to 08.08.2005 for 8 months 15 days plaintiff could not ply her buses and the defendants have illegally caused loss of earnings by preventing the interstate bus service by the plaintiff from 24.11.2004 to 08.08.2005. As a result, the plaintiff had suffered loss of earning to the tune of Rs. 3,82,500/- with interest @ 12% per annum. On 10.07.2013 the plaintiff along with others issued a legal notice to the defendants to stop collecting payment for issuance of no objection certificate by the defendant no. 3 in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court. But getting no relief the plaintiff and his companions filed a writ petition WP(C) 302/2013 before the Hon'ble High Court of Tripura which was disposed of on 23.09.2013 in terms of the judgment passed in WP(C) 101/2010 and WP (C) 102/2010. It is stated by the plaintiff that only on 27.05.2013 when the writ petitions came up for final hearing before the Honb'le High Court the defendants have submitted before the Hon'ble High Court that the writ petitions have come infructuous as the entire scheme has been abandoned by the State Government. It is stated by the plaintiff that only on 27.05.2013 when the writ petitions came up for final hearing before the Honb'le High Court the defendants have submitted before the Hon'ble High Court that the writ petitions have come infructuous as the entire scheme has been abandoned by the State Government. On 22.04.2016 the plaintiff had issued a notice under section 80(1) of CPC to the defendants demanding the claim of his money and also stating that on failure of payment by the defendants the plaintiff has instituted this suit. As per the averments of the plaint the cause of action of this suit arose on 22.04.2016 i.e. from the date of expiry of the notice under section 80 (1) of CPC. Hence, the plaintiff has instituted this suit for realization of her monetary claim. 3. Defendant No. 1 and 2 in their written statement have challenged the maintainability of this suit by stating that the cause of action of this suit is invalid and the suit is barred by the law of limitation. It is stated that in the plaint there is no averment regarding the specific date of arising out of the cause of action and no cause of action can arise from the date of issuance of legal notice. The Hon'ble High Court did not give any direction about the notification and did not interfere due to the changed situation. The Hon'ble High Court has only held that the notification dated 26.10.2004 is inoperative. Plaintiff has not made in any payment to the defendant No. 1 and 2 and defendant No. 1 and 2 have been unnecessarily made party in this suit. It is also stated by the defendant No. 1 and 2 that though the plaintiff has instituted this suit for realization of money but in the prayer portion of the plaint he has sought for a declaration and as such the suit is not filed proper form. However, the defendant no. 1 and 2 have admitted that a notice was issued on 26.10.2004 by the Secretary of the State Transport Authority for taking no objection certificate from the defendant no. 3 for obtaining route permit for interstate bus service. It is further stated by the defendant no. However, the defendant no. 1 and 2 have admitted that a notice was issued on 26.10.2004 by the Secretary of the State Transport Authority for taking no objection certificate from the defendant no. 3 for obtaining route permit for interstate bus service. It is further stated by the defendant no. 1 and 2 that no adverse order was passed against the State of Tripura by the Hon'ble High Court and the Hon'ble High court did not interfere in the said notice dated 26.10.2004. As such the plaintiff can not take any benefit arising out of any observation made in the Judgment of the Hon'ble High Court. Thus, the principle plea of the defendant no. 1 and 2 against this suit is on the ground of bar of limitation.' 5. On the basis of pleadings, following issues were framed: 'In M.S. 31 of 2016: 'i) Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form and nature? ii) Whether there is any cause of action for filing the suit? iii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover Rs. 13,99,012/- with the interest @ 12% per annum from the defendant? iv) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get the decree, as prayed for? v) Whether the parties are entitled to any other relief/reliefs?' 'In M.S. 32 of 2016: 'i) Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form and nature? ii) Whether the suit is barred by limitation? iii) Whether the plaintiff any cause of action to institute this suit? iv) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover Rs. 11,89,951/- with interest @ 12% per annum from the defendant? v) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get cost of the suit? vi) Whether, the plaintiff is entitled to get a decree as prayed for? vii) To what other relief/reliefs the parties are entitled to according to law?' 'In M.S. 33 of 2016: 'i) Whether the suit is maintainable in its present form and nature? ii) Whether the plaintiff has cause of action for filing the instant suit? iii) Whether the suit is barred by law of limitation? iv) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get recovery of an amount of Rs. 12,78,290/- only alongwith interest @ 12% per annum from the defendant? vi) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get a decree as prayed for? vii) To what other relief/reliefs the parties are entitled?' 6. iii) Whether the suit is barred by law of limitation? iv) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get recovery of an amount of Rs. 12,78,290/- only alongwith interest @ 12% per annum from the defendant? vi) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get a decree as prayed for? vii) To what other relief/reliefs the parties are entitled?' 6. Evidences were let in by the parties to the lis. Thereafter, having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties, the learned trial court dismissed the suits of the plaintiffs of the above cases in the following manner: '10. On perusal of the averments of the plaint, I find that nothing is clearly mentioned in the plaint regarding the date of arising out of the cause of action. In para no. 15 of the plaint it is stated by the plaintiff that the cause of action of the suit arose as stated herein above and from the date of expiry of the notice under Sec. 80(1) of CPC dated 22.04.16. However, on perusal of the previous paragraphs of para no. 15 of the plaint I find that on 27.05.13 the Hon'ble High Court of Tripura has disposed of the two writ petitions vide no. WP(C) 62 of 2005 and WP(C) 95 of 2005 and thereafter the plaintiff issued a notice dated 10.07.2013 to the defendants demanding them to stop realizing money for issuance of NOC. Subsequently, when the defendants did not respond then another writ petition was filed by the plaintiff vide no. WP(C) 302 of 2013 which was disposed off on 23.09.13 in terms of the judgments of the above mentioned two writ petitions. Subsequently, on 22.04.16 the plaintiff has issued the statutory notice under Sec. 80(1) of CPC to the defendants. Thus, there are several dates on which the date of cause of action can be reckoned for the purpose of this suit. It may be 27.05.13, 23.09.13 or after the expiry of the period of the statutory notice. The plaintiff in this suit has not adduced any evidence to prove on which date the defendants have received the notice issued under Sec. 80(1) of CPC(Exbt. 2). As a result, there is no evidence before the Court to compute the period of limitation which shall start after two months from the date of receipt of the statutory notice by the defendants. In the last part of para no. 2). As a result, there is no evidence before the Court to compute the period of limitation which shall start after two months from the date of receipt of the statutory notice by the defendants. In the last part of para no. 14 of the plaint it is mentioned by the plaintiff that the notice was sent by registered post which the defendants had received but they did not make the payment and hence, the suit has been filed. Thus, nothing is mentioned in the plaint regarding the date of delivery of the statutory notice by the plaintiff issued to the defendants. The date of delivery of the notice is the most essential fact which has a bearing upon the cause of action of this suit since the period of limitation shall be computed from the date on which the two months period has expired. In this case from the averments of the plaint it appears that the cause of action has arisen on 27.05.13 i.e. the date on which the Hon'ble High Court has disposed of the writ petitions. The instant suit has been instituted on 23.07.16 i.e. after the expiry of 3 years 1 month and 26 days which is beyond the period of limitation. At the time of arguments Ld. Counsel Mr. H. Sarkar for the State respondents has argued that the period of notice shall be included in the period of limitation computable for the institution of a suit but I am unable to agree with this submission as by virtue of section 15(2) of the Limitation Act, 1963 in computing the period of limitation for instituting a suit against the Government or public officer, the period of notice has to be excluded. As already pointed above there is no evidence before the Court regarding the date on which the statutory notice under Sec. 80 of CPC was received by the defendants. From the evidence adduced by the plaintiff I find that the notice was issued on 22.04.16 and the suit has been instituted on 23.07.16 i.e. after 3 months and 1 day. As per the provision of section 80 of CPC a plaint can be presented after the expiration of 2 months of notice, which must contain a statement that a statutory notice under Sec. 80 of the CPC has been delivered or left as required by section 80(1). As per the provision of section 80 of CPC a plaint can be presented after the expiration of 2 months of notice, which must contain a statement that a statutory notice under Sec. 80 of the CPC has been delivered or left as required by section 80(1). In this suit though it is mentioned by the plaintiff in the plaint that the statutory notice was served through registered post but the delivery report of the registered post has not been adduced in evidence by the plaintiff. Thus, even for argument's sake if it is considered that the statutory notice under Sec. 80 of CPC was dispatched by the plaintiff to the defendants through registered post and it was received after 1 week by the defendants, then also the suit has been instituted beyond the period of 2 months which is beyond the period of limitation.' 7. Main grounds for dismissing the suits are that (i) the suit filed by the plaintiffs were barred by law of limitation; (ii) there was no cause of action, and, (iii) the judgment passed by this Hon'ble Court cannot be the cause of action. 8. On the facts above stated, it is revealed that the plaintiffs in their plaint have mentioned the cause of action of the suits, the date when the judgments were delivered by this Hon'ble Court on 27.05.2013. In this regard, short background of the cases may be reiterated apart from the facts stated here-in-above. The State of Tripura had issued a notification dated 26.10.2004 to the effect that to ply inter-State vehicles, the willing owners of the vehicles are required to obtain No-objection certificates (NOC) from the Tripura Road Transport Corporation Limited (for short, 'TRTC Ltd'). Based on that notification, applications were invited from the willing persons. Many responded to that Expression of Interest (EOI). Thereafter, an agreement was entered into between the plaintiffs and TRTC Ltd. containing some terms and conditions. Both the parties agreed upon the said terms and conditions and had executed the said agreement. In that meanwhile, the notification dated 26.10.2004 was put to challenge by the plaintiffs before the Hon'ble High Court of Tripura by way of filing petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Those writ petitions were disposed of on 27.05.2013. Both the parties agreed upon the said terms and conditions and had executed the said agreement. In that meanwhile, the notification dated 26.10.2004 was put to challenge by the plaintiffs before the Hon'ble High Court of Tripura by way of filing petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Those writ petitions were disposed of on 27.05.2013. During pendency of those writ petitions filed by the plaintiffs of the above cases, the government had withdrawn the notification as it appears from the judgment and order dated 27.05.2013 passed in WP(C) 102 of 2010. The relevant portion of the said judgment and order may be extracted here-in-below: '6. Mr. P. Datta, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Tripura Road Transport Corporation as well as Mr. A. Ghosh, learned state counsel appearing for the respondents no. 1 and 2 have submitted that these writ petitions have become infructuous inasmuch as the entire scheme has been abandoned by the State Government. 7. Be that as it may, by the impugned notice, the State action has exceeded its authority as provided by the statute. The State has to take any action within the bounds of the authority as provided to it. As such, the impugned notice dated 26.10.2004 is bad in law and is accordingly liable to be declared inoperative for all purposes. But, in view of the statements as made by Mr. P. Datta, learned counsel appearing for the Tripura Road Transport Corporation as well as by Mr. A. Ghosh, learned state counsel appearing for the respondents No. 1 and 2, no interference in the changed situation is called for. 8. With the above observation, these writ petitions being, W.P.(C) No. 62/2005 and W.P.(C) No. 95/2005 stand disposed of. However, there shall be no order as to costs.' 9. According to the plaintiffs, this order of the Hon'ble High Court gives rise to cause of action to file the present suits. 10. The learned trial court held that this order of the Hon'ble High Court cannot give rise to cause of action and the suit is barred by limitation. The learned trial court has noted that even after the judgment and order dated 27.05.2013 the present suit had been filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation as if the suits were filed after expiry of prescribed period of 3 (three) years for filing the suits of this nature. The learned trial court has noted that even after the judgment and order dated 27.05.2013 the present suit had been filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation as if the suits were filed after expiry of prescribed period of 3 (three) years for filing the suits of this nature. Further, the learned trial court held that the parties entered into a specific agreement having taking care of the terms and conditions contained in the said agreement. The said agreement was executed on 08.08.2005. If the terms and conditions stipulated in the said agreement were found to be illegal and contrary to law, then, it would have been filed within a period of three years i.e. the prescribed period of limitation for filing a suit for realization of damage. According to the learned trial court, since the agreement was entered into between the parties on 08.08.2005, the suit ought to have been filed on or before 08.08.2009. As such, the learned trial court held that the suit is absolutely barred by law of limitation. It was further held by the learned trial court that 'the plaintiff has never filed any suit from the period of 2005 to 2013 and 2013 to 2016 seeking any declaration that the agreement made between the plaintiffs and the defendant no. 3 to be void. In this suit also no declaration has been sought by the plaintiff that the agreement pursuant to which compensation is claimed is to be declared as void. As a result, no evidence has been placed by the plaintiff to show that the agreement out of which monetary claim is made by the plaintiff is void or declared to be void by any other competent court so as to entitle him to claim compensation. Moreover the plaintiff has admittedly not adduced any evidence to satisfy the Court regarding the loss of earning sustained by him relevant to the period as mentioned in the plaint. So far as the evidence of the plaintiff is concerned the plaintiff has only adduced a bunch of money receipts issued by the defendant no. 3 for yearly kilometer charges and parking charges w.e.f. 2005 to 2013. But since those amounts were collected by the defendant no. 3 during the period when the contract was valid and not declared to be operative, so, the plaintiff is not entitled to realize the said amount as mentioned in this plaint. 3 for yearly kilometer charges and parking charges w.e.f. 2005 to 2013. But since those amounts were collected by the defendant no. 3 during the period when the contract was valid and not declared to be operative, so, the plaintiff is not entitled to realize the said amount as mentioned in this plaint. Thus, I find that the plaintiff is not entitled to the realization of Rs. 11,89,951/- from the defendants along with interest.' 11. We find no materials so that such finding calls for interference by this court. Accordingly, we concur with the findings of the learned trial court that the plaintiffs had failed to substantiate the quantum of damage which they claimed. 12. Furthermore, in our opinion, the judgment rendered by this court in WP(C) 101 of 2010 and 102 of 2010 cannot give rise to cause of action to file the above suits. Had the plaintiffs been aggrieved of the terms and conditions contained in the said agreement, they could challenge the said agreement just after execution of the said agreement or within a period of three years from the date of said agreement. On this ground alone the suits instituted by the plaintiffs are barred by law of limitation and the suits are not maintainable. Since the suits are found to be barred by the law of limitation, we refrain ourselves from entering into the other aspects of the cases. 13. In the light of above, we find no merit in the appeals. Accordingly, the appeals stand dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Prepare the decree accordingly. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed. Send down the LCRs.