STATE OF GOA, THROUGH CHIEF SECRETARY, REPRESENTED BY DIRECTOR OF TOURISM, GOVERNMENT OF GOA Vs. SHRI LAXIMAN SANGLE SON OF SHRI SONU SANGLE, MAJOR, MARRIED, BUSINESS, INDIA NATIONAL, R/O. MONTE VILLA, SANGOLDA, BARDEZ - GOA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above appeal challenges the judgment and decree dated 29/07/2005 passed by the learned Additional District Judge at Mapusa in Civil Suit No. 348/2004. The appellant filed the suit on the ground that the Tourism Department had constructed Tourist Dormitory at Britona having nine rooms and a separate restaurant/canteen in a tourist complex at Britona which was constructed in the year 1982. It is further their case that they wanted to give the canteen for running in the said premises and, as such, they floated tenders by publishing a tender notice in the newspaper dated 3/12/1985. The highest tender was for Rs. 88,400/ - per annum and the lowest was Rs. 36,600/ - per annum. The highest tender was that of the defendant/respondent and, as such, the same was offered to the defendant/respondent. An agreement came to be executed between the appellant and the respondent dated 11/07/1986 for a period of three years. The terms and conditions pursuant to which the canteen was allowed to be operated were stipulated in the said agreement. The respondent was called upon to furnish the security to the tune of Rs. 22,100/ - and Rs. 88,400/ - as Bank Guarantee vide letter dated 30/05/1986. However, the respondent did not comply with the said request, but however, the respondent deposited Rs. 22,100/ - on 12/06/1986 towards quarterly rent and the possession of the canteen/restaurant was handed over on 12/06/1986. It is further their case that the respondent was also given articles as mentioned at para 12 of the said plaint. It is further the contention of the appellant that the respondent was called upon to pay the arrears of the rent, but however, the respondent deposited the amount towards the first quarterly on 12/06/1986 in two installments namely Rs. 13,260/ - and Rs. 8,840/ - in cash. Thereafter, on 29/12/1986, a sum of Rs. 7,366/ - was effected as part payment of the quarterly amount and again deposited Rs. 7,366/ - and other amounts from time to time as stated at para 14 of the plaint. As there was default in the payment of the amounts by the respondent, the appellant was forced to write letters on various occasions to the respondent. Accordingly, for the reasons stated in the plaint, the suit came to be filed claiming a sum of Rs. 2,85,499/ - from the respondent together with interest.

(2.) THE respondent filed their written statement stating that the suit is liable to be dismissed as the same is time barred. The respondent admitted that he was successful tenderer of the contract to run the canteen. It was further their case that the appellant has failed to perform its part of the contract and, as such, they could not insist that the respondent is liable to pay the arrears of the rent. They have stated the lapses which according to them were committed by the appellant in their written statement and ultimately prayed that the suit be dismissed.

(3.) MS . Susan Linhares, the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the appellant has assailed the impugned judgment and pointed out that the learned Judge ha erroneously come to the conclusion that the suit was barred by limitation. The learned Counsel has pointed out that under Article 112 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the period of limitation for filing the suit on behalf of the State Government is 30 years and, admittedly, on perusal of the plaint the suit has been filed within the time prescribed and, as such, the finding of the learned Judge that the suit is barred by law of limitation cannot be sustained. Learned Counsel further submitted that the learned Judge has erroneously come to the conclusion that the amount due to the appellant was Rs. 1,17,870/ -, as according to her, besides the said amount the respondent was also liable to pay higher charges for the items as well as the electricity charges, which were not considered by the learned Judge. The learned Counsel further submitted that considering that the last payment was in July, 1987, the interest on account of delayed payment ought to have been granted as from the said date. The learned Counsel has taken me through the evidence on record and pointed out that the learned Judge has erroneously dismissed the suit and rejected the claim put forward by the appellant.