JUDGMENT 1. The appellant-defendants have filed this second appeal invoking Section 100 of CPC assailing the judgment and decree dated 23.09.2019 passed in civil first appeal No.2/2017 by Additional District Judge No.2, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur affirming the judgment and decree for recovery of damages dated 07.11.2017 passed in civil suit No.20/2002 by the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate No.6, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur whereby and whereunder the following decree has been passed:- ^^vr% okn oknh fo:} Áfroknhx.k fMØh fd;k tkdj Áfroknhx.k dks ;g vkns'k fn;s tkrs gS fd os oknh }kjk fookfnr nqdku ds vUnj ls djokbZ xbZ ejEer ds 14]412@& :i;s e; C;kt tks C;kt okn ÁLrqfr dh fnukad 10-11-2000 ls vkt fnukad rd 6 Áfr'kr lk/kkj.k okf"kZd C;kt dh nj ls jkf'k 14]412@& :i;s ij C;kt dh x.kuk djus 14]700@& :i;s gksrs gS] bl Ádkj dqy jkf'k 29]112@& :i;s la;qDr ,oa i`Fkd&i`Fkd :i ls oknh dks vkns'k dh fnukad ls nks ekg ds Hkhrj vnk djsA nks ekg ds Hkhrj vnk;xh djus ij oknh vkns'k dh fnukad ls vnk;xh rd 6 Áfr'kr okf"kZd lk/kkj.k C;kt nj ls Áfroknhx.k ls C;kt ÁkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gksxkA [kpkZ i{kdkjku viuk&viuk ogu djsaxsA fMØh ipkZ rS;kj fd;k tkosA** 2. It appears from the record that appellants are landlords of respondent-tenant. The rented premise is a shop bearing Gate No.7 to 10 at Plot No.570 Golcha Bhawan, 20 Shop, Adarsh Nagar, Jaipur. It is not in dispute that the respondent-plaintiff was in use and occupation of the rented premise. 3. Respondent-plaintiff filed a civil suit claiming damages alleging inter alia that landlords started to accumulate the water on the roof of the rented shop in order to harass the tenants and due to which the roof and rented shop bore cracks and the water started to seepage from the roof. It was alleged that the tenant was carrying out his business of medicine and general store in the rented shop and due to seepage water from the roof, there was a lot of damage to the goods. The tenant, initially filed a civil suit for permanent injunction with application for Temporary Injunction. In such proceedings an order dated 04.09.1997 was passed by the High Court that the tenant would be entitled to get repairs in the rented premise and the expenses would be borne by the landlords. The tenant, initially filed a civil suit for permanent injunction with application for Temporary Injunction. In such proceedings an order dated 04.09.1997 was passed by the High Court that the tenant would be entitled to get repairs in the rented premise and the expenses would be borne by the landlords. Thereafter, the respondent-plaintiff got the repair done in the shop, and claimed the expenses to the tune of Rs.39,832/-. 4. It appears that the plaintiff issued a legal notice dated 01.11.2000 to defendants to pay the aforesaid amount of expenses and thereafter instituted the present civil suit for recovery of the costs incurred in getting the rented premise repaired alongwith interest. 5. Appellant-defendants submitted written statement, denying the claim made by the respondent-plaintiff, however from the record, it is clear that defendants and their witnesses did not appear for cross-examination, and ex parte proceedings against defendants were commenced before the trial court. The trial court, according to the evidence of the plaintiff and his witnesses as well as considering the documents (Exhibit Nos. 1, 2 and 3), observed that plaintiff has incurred at least an amount of Rs. 14,412/- to get repair of the rented shop. It was observed that the damage to the rented premise was caused due to misdeed of defendants. The bills of the material and the charges of labour were duly produced on record. On appreciation of such evidence, the trial court decreed the suit for recovery of amount of Rs.14,412/- and allowed interest at the rate of 6% from the date of suit i.e. 10.11.2000 to the actual realization. 6. The appellant-defendants challenged the impugned judgment and decree of trial court by way of first appeal. The first appellate court, on appreciating the evidence on record did not find any infirmity or perversity in the findings of the trial court and affirming the same, however the first appellate court modified the decree of the trial court to the extent of interest payable on the principal amount of Rs.14,412/- and a lump sum amount of interest of Rs.10,000/- was allowed on the principal sum of Rs.14,412/-, hence the decree was passed for the recovery of total decreetal amount of Rs.24,412/- including interest. 7. 7. It appears from the judgment of appellate court that the evidence adduced by the plaintiff has been re-appreciated and issues have been re-considered and thereafter the first appellate court affirmed the findings of the trial court. 8. Learned counsel for appellants has argued that the suit for recovery was barred by limitation and no specific period has been proved by the plaintiff as to when the repairing work got done in the rented premise. 9. Heard learned counsel for appellant and perused the impugned judgments. 10. It appears from the record that the present suit for recovery of amount was led on 10.11.2000. Prior to filing of the suit, the legal notice dated 01.11.2000 was issued by the plaintiff. 11. The repairing work has been got done after passing the order by the High Court dated 04.09.1997 whereby and whereunder the tenant was allowed to get repair in the rented premise and it was observed that landlords would bear the expenses, hence it is clear that the repairing work was done during the period after September, 1997 to 2000, and the civil suit for recovery filed on 10.11.2000. In such factual scenario, the suit may not be treated as barred by limitation. More over, it appears that no defence of the limitation was raised by defendants in their written statements. Even the defendants did not appear in their cross examination and remain ex parte. Both courts, on appreciation of the evidence, have passed the decree for recovery of an amount of Rs. 14,412/- with interest. 12. This Court does not find any perversity in the impugned decree and findings of fact recorded by both the courts below do no give rise any substantial question of law and hence, this second appeal is found bereft of merits and the same is accordingly dismissed. 13. Stay application and any other pending application(s) if any, stand(s) disposed of.