J LAXMAIAH Vs. J LAXMAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner-Andhra bank , aggrieved against the order made in Interlocutory Application no. 301 of 1986, filed by the respondent-plaintiff herein, permitting amendment of the plaint, filed this revision petition, herein, permitting amendment of the plaint, filed this revision petition. The amendment to the plaint sought to incorporate the following :

(2.) by adding the following after para No. 5 :- "Para 5-A . - The various documents mentioned in annexure I to the point thought lodged by the plaintiff with the defendant-bank, were not returned to th plaintiff even or the date of the suit. The documents at serial Nos. 1,2,3,4,7,8,9,10,11,12,14,16,17 and 19 were returned by the defendant bank only on January 10, 1981. The documents referred to at serial nos. 5 and 6 of annexure I are said to have returned by the defendant to the third parties without notice, knowledge or consent of the plaintiff. The defendant has no right t to return the said documents were lodged by the plaintiff with the defendant. The documents referred to at serial nos. 13, 15 and 19 of annexure I have not been returned to the plaintiff till today. Admittedly, the documents mentioned in annexure I of the plaint were lodged by the plaintiff for the purpose of securing S.O.D. limit do the excise year 1979-80, i.e., period commencing from October 1, 1979, and ending with September 30, 1980. The defendant was aware that the plaintiff was not allowed to avail of the S.O.D. limit facility for the excise year 1979-80 and no amount was due by the plaintiff to the defendant during the said excise year. The plaintiff had repeatedly demanded the return of the documents as mentioned in annexure I, but the defendant returned the documents to the plaintiff, the plaintiff. Had the defendant returned the documents to the plaintiff, the plaintiff would have approached any other financial institution or persons for the purpose of securing a suitable loan for carrying on business. it is common knowledge that unless adequate and substantial securities are given, the banks or any other firm would not provide any loan facility. The plaintiff had handed over to the defendant all most all documents of title relating to the properties belonging to him, him close relatives and friends and , therefore, the plaintiff not only became helpless but also the plaintiff could not approach any other financial institution or person to raise loans. The defendant is also aware that the plaintiff is traditionally y and excise contractor and was interested in taken up excise contracts. For the excise year 198081 also which commended from October 1, 1980, on wards, the plaintiff required the documents so that at least for the excise year 1980-81, the plaintiff could approach any other bank or person for securing loan for taken up excise contract. In fact, the plaintiff approached this court by filing the suit in September, 1980, and , prior to filing or the suit, the plaintiff issued notice to the defedant but the defedant wrongfully withheld the said documents till some of them were returned to the plaintiff on January 10, 1981. The excise auctions, to the knowledge of the defedant , are held in August-September every year and the excise year 1980-81 to enable the plaintiff to apply to any other financial institution or person to secure suitable loan. The defedant deliberately returned some of the documents mentioned in annexure I to the plaint only on January 10, 1981, i.e., long after the auctions for the year 1980-81 were held. some of the documents mentioned in annexure I have not yet been returned to the plaintiff. Some of them are claimed to have been returned to the parties directly without the consent of the plaintiff though they were lodged by the plaintiff. The defendant therefore, committed breach of contract and the obligations case upon it to return the documents to the plaintiff and, thereby, the plaintiff suffered heavily in so far as the plaintiff was unable to secure excise contract for the excise years 1979-1980 and 1980-81. Para 5(b). - On account of breach of contract committed by the defedant, as narrated above, the plaintiff who has been a traditional excise contractor has not only suffered actual loss of business in the subsequent years which he would otherwise have made, but also loss of reputation and status, loss of health and loss inn expendiency and stabilisation of any future business. The plaintiff also underwent tremendous stress and strain both physical and mental on account of being put out of business for more than two years after the breach of contract was committed by the defendant and, even thereafter, it took considerable time for the plaintiff to come up and regain his earlier position and status in business. On all these counts, the plaintiff has suffered heavily both towards general and special damages which the plaintiff quantifies to the tune of Rs. 10,00,000 and claims the said amount as damages for the said breach of contract committed by the defendant. para 5(C)- the plaintiff status that in addition to relief for return for documents and for accounts, the plaintiff is also entitled to claim damages as mentioned in paras 5(1) and 5(b) which amount to Rs. 10,00,000. The plaintiff is entitled is entitled to decree for the said amount against the defendant. 2. After para No. 8 : Para 8(a). - The relief by way of damages is valued at Rs. 10,00,000 under section 20 of the Andhra Pradesh Court Fees and Suits valuation Act, 1956, and court fees of Rs. 12,426 is paid under article 1(b) and (c) of the said Act which is sufficient. the total value of the suit for purpose of jurisdiction is Rs. 10,00,000.

(3.) After para No. 11 : Para 11(2)(a). - The plaintiff claims a sum of Rs. 10,00,000 with interest thereon from the date of the suit till the date of realisation at the rate of 18 per cent per annum or at such higher rate as would be permissible under the law."