MALABAR MARKET COMMITTEE Vs. VASUDEVAN NAMBOODIRIPAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff in OS 584 of 1972 of the Munsiff's Court, Kozhikode, is the appellant. The defendant in the suit is the respondent herein. The plaintiff is an autonomous body established under S.4-A of the Madras Commercial Crops Market Act, 1933. The defendant is an ex-employee of the plaintiff. He was appointed as a junior clerk on 15-3-1955. He was promoted as a Supervisor. He was so working at Kanhangad from 7-6-1960 to 31-3-1965. During that time he committed grave irregularities contrary to Rules and Regulations. The plaintiff incurred heavy loss. They are detailed in Para.3(a) to 3(j) in the plaint. The actual loss so assessed and evident from the final orders passed on 18-10-1969 is Rs. 4647.44. Ext.A3 notice was issued to the defendant on 20-10-1970 directing him to pay the amount. The defendant was dismissed from service on 18-10-1969. The amount due from the defendant was adjusted towards amount realisable by the plaintiff. After such adjustment, the amount still due is Rs. 3169.44. Stating that the cause of action arose only on serving the notice, Ext.A3, dated 20-10-1970, the suit was laid on 13-10-1972. The defendant, raised very many contentions. One of them was that the suit was barred by limitation. It was so argued on the basis that Art.113 of the Limitation Act applies to the instant case. According to the plaintiff, the cause of action arose only on 20-10-1970. So the suit is within time. The Courts below negatived this plea. And hence this second appeal.

(2.) I heard counsel for the appellant, Mr. Bhaskaran, and also counsel for the respondent Mr. D. Narayanan Poti. Appellant's counsel argued that the cause of action for the suit accrued only after the quantification of the amount due from the defendant. That was so done only when Ext.A3 was prepared and sent. As stated earlier, the suit was for compensation for malfeasance, misfeasance and non feasance, independent of the contract. It was agreed at the bar that Art.113 of the Limitation Act applies to the instant case. Art.113 of the Limitation Act is as follows:-

(3.) Respondent's counsel Mr. D Narayanan Poti brought to my notice the decision in Sivachidambara Mudaliar v. Kamatchi Ammal (ILR 33 Mad. 71) and contended that the cause of action accrues on the date when the misfeasance is committed. In that case, the Division Bench of the Madras High Court was construing Art.36 of the Limitation Act (1908) (as it stood then). It expressly provided that for compensation available in malfeasance, misfeasance or non feasance, independent of contract, the suit should be brought within two years from the date of the malfeasance, misfeasance or non feasance takes place. That decision is distinguishable and has no application to a case in construing the language of Art.113 of the Limitation Act 1963.