CONTINENTAL ADVERTISING PVT LTD Vs. KARAN & CO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Regular First Appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is filed by the plaintiff in the suit impugning the Judgment of the Trial Court dated 31.05.2006 by which the trial court has dismissed the suit for recovery of Rs. 6,00,000/- filed by the appellant/plaintiff. The suit has been dismissed on the ground that the same is barred by limitation.

(2.) The facts of the case are that the appellant/plaintiff pleaded that it issued advertisements in the newspaper for the weekly draws of lotteries for the State of Meghalaya. It was pleaded, that as per the statement of account maintained by the appellant/plaintiff, a sum of Rs. 4,28,256.56/- was due. Since despite writing letters repeatedly, payment due to the appellant/plaintiff was not released, therefore, the subject suit was filed for recovery of the principal amount of Rs. 4,28,256.56/- alongwith interest amount of Rs. 1,71,743.44/-. There were a total of four defendants in the suit when it was constituted. However, defendant no. 2 and 3 were deleted as parties vide Order dated 01.05.1991 and further, the suit qua defendant no. 4 was dismissed vide Order dated 26.11.1999. Hence, the only contesting defendant was defendant no. 1 who was allegedly the agent of the State of Meghalaya.

(3.) The suit was contested by the respondent/defendant no. 1 and it was pleaded that the amount as claimed by the appellant/plaintiff was not due and that the appellant/plaintiff was already over-paid for the work. It was further pleaded that the appellant/plaintiff raised inflated bills, although, the newspapers had claimed a different lesser amount for the advertisements issued. It is for this reason that the accreditation of the appellant/plaintiff was removed by Indian and Eastern Newspaper Society. It was also pleaded that the appellant/plaintiff had released advertisement with mistakes, and therefore, the appellant/plaintiff had agreed to give discounts which were eventually not given. The respondent/defendant no. 1 further pleaded that in terms of the MOU dated 09.01985, the appellant/plaintiff agreed to reduce the charges on account of mistakes in the publication, but the appellant/plaintiff failed to do so. The suit was pleaded to be barred by limitation and hence it was prayed to be dismissed.