(1.) This letters Patent Appeal is filed by the plaintiff against the judgment of our learned brother Jeevan Reddy., J. who , by his order dated 29-12-1976 confirmed the judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge Kakinada.
(2.) The main question raised before us as in the Courts below is, whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the plaintiff is entitled to the benefit of Section of 14 of the Limitation Act. But it has its subsidiaries.
(3.) The plaintiff is a Madrasi trader while the defendant is a businessman of Samalkot, East Godavari District in Andhra Pradesh. The plaintiff entered in to a contract with the defendant on 26-5-1964 for the supply of polythene liners of certain specified varieties for delivery in June and July F. O. R. Cuddalore O. T. by M. B. T. Lorry service. He also paid to the defendant an advance of Rupees 10,000/- by a cheque drawn on a Madras Bank. According to the terms of the contract, the defendant should send the documents through bank and the balance of the purchase money should be paid by the plaintiff of the delivering June and July consignments which he delivered only in August. The July consignment he delivered only in part. The plaintiff had placed another order on 26-5-1964 with the defendants for the supply of another consignment of polythene liners to be delivered in August on similar terms (more or less). While the July consignment was delivered by the defendant. The plaintiff therefore, cancelled his contract with the defendant under Ex. B-11 dated 3-8-1964. Some time after the receipt of the aforesaid Ex. B-11, the defendant sent a telegram on 1-9-1964 to the plaintiff saying that the goods were ready but, since the contract was cancelled by the plaintiff, the goods would be disposed of at the plaintiffs risk. The next day on 2-9-1964, the defendant had sent another telegram. Ex. B-23, stating that the goods had been disposed of and he suffered a loss of about Rupees 1,200/- and odd which amount he called upon the plaintiff to make good.