SHRIKRISHNA HARIBHAU GORE Vs. SADASHIV LAXMAN PUDALE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) P. C. Heard learned counsel for the revision applicants. None present for respondents.

(2.) This revision application is directed against the judgment and order passed by the learned District Judge, Sangli, dismissing their appeal and confirming the decision of the trial Court dismissing their suit for damages.

(3.) The applicants filed a suit against respondents who are officers of the sangli Municipal Council, for damages of Rs. 12,360/- for illegal removal of tiles (Farshi) in front of their shop. The applicants had laid tiles covering the drainage passing in front of their shop. The respondents, purporting to act in exercise their powers under the Municipal Councils, Nagar Panchayats and Industrial townships Act, 1965 (for short "the Municipalities Act") removed the said tiles which amounted to erection of an obstruction on the road. According to the applicants, the respondents had no authority to do so and their act was illegal and ultra vires their powers under the Municipalities Act. The applicants, after issuance of the necessary notice under section 304-A of the Municipalities Act filed a suit against respondents claiming damages. The trial Court held that the applicants had proved that the respondents had caused damages to the tiles. The trial Court however, dismissed the suit on the ground that the suit was barred by limitation as it was filed after expiry of the period of six months from the date of accrual of the cause of action. The cause of action for the suit had arisen on'7th october, 1991 when the tiles were illegally broken. The suit was filed on 13th april, 1992 i. e. after expiry of period of six months from the date of accrual of the cause of action. The trial Court held that as per section 304-A of the municipalities Act the suit was required to be filed within six months from the date of accrual of the cause of action and as the suit filed after expiry of six months it was barred by limitation.