RAMANATHAPURAM MARKET COMMITTEE VIRUDHUNAGAR THROUGH ITS SUPERINTENDENT REGULATED MARKET KARAIKUDI Vs. T V S S KADARKARAI VADIVEL MURUGAN AND SONS THROUGH ITS PARTNERS BALAKRISHNAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 22.4.1998 made in A.S.No.108 of 1987 by the Court of Principal District Judge, Ramanathapuram at Madurai, thereby confirming the judgment and decree dated 27.11.1986 made in O.S.No.52 of 1985 by the Court of Subordinate Judge, Devakottai.

(2.) ADVERTING to the facts of the case, it is a suit filed by the appellant herein for recovery of sum of Rs.27,274.20 coupled with interest and costs on account of the supply of paddy to the defendants thus, pleading to the effect that the defendants have indulged in the business of purchase of paddy with the plaintiff market committee as per Sec.6(9) of the Tamil Nadu Act 23 of 1959; that at the rate of 45 paise per Rs.100 from out of the purchase money, the purchasers-defendants had to pay in favour of the plaintiffs and in such manner, the defendants have not submitted the a counts for the purchase of the paddy from 1.7.1979 to 31.12.1981 in spite of notices having been sent; that during the said period, as per the accounts maintained by the Deputy Commercial Tax Officer, the defendants have effected the purchase for a total amount of Rs.60,60,940.82 for which they were liable to pay an amount of Rs.27,274.20 in the above said manner and demanding the said amount, many notices have been sent to the defendants, but they never came forward to pay the said amount in favour of the plaintiff. Hence the suit.

(3.) ALL the above three substantial questions of law revolve around one question, that is the question of law of limitation. Hence, if the first question is settled only thereafter the question of settling the other two substantial questions of law would arise.