HINDUSTAN MOTORS LTD Vs. MOTORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal has been preferred by the defendant/appellant M/s Hindustan Motors Ltd. as against judgment and decree dated 4.5.1999 passed by 9th Addl. District Judge,Jabalpur in Civil Suit No.190-B/95.

(2.) The question agitated in the appeal is whether the instant suit filed for seeking damages owing to breach of contract of dealership which was awarded to the plaintiff could be said to be barred by limitation in view of the leave which was granted by the Court under Order II Rule 2 Civil Procedure Code in the previous Civil Suit No. 54-A/1968 and decision rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in First Appeal No. 106/1980 decided on 28.7.1987. Further question is whether the defendant can be said to be debarred from raising the plea of limitation.

(3.) M/s D.R.Motors,Jabalpur was granted dealership of M/s Hindustant Motors Ltd. in respect of business of franchise of Hindustan Ambassador Cars and Bedford Chassis and spare parts. Dealership was terminated by M/s Hindustan Motors Ltd. Prayer was made in Civil Suit No.54-A/1968 to declare the termination of dealership to be illegal, injunction was sought against the Hindustan Motors Ltd. restraining it from preventing the plaintiff from acting as a Dealer. Agency was terminated on 20th May, 1968. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 24.4.1980. Plaintiff was held entitled to claim the damages after termination of the dealership, the relief of declaration and injunction was not granted. The trial Court had granted permission under Order II Rule 2CPC to the plaintiff to sue for damages. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree, the plaintiff had preferred FA No. 106/1980 before this Court which was decided by a Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 28.7.1987. Cross objections were preferred by the present defendant appellant M/s Hindustan Motors Ltd. assailing part of the decision permitting the plaintiff to file fresh suit for damages. The appeal as well as cross objections were dismissed. It was held by the Division Bench of this Court that permission has been rightly granted to the plaintiff to file fresh suit to seek the damages,plea taken that after long lapse of time, permission could not have been granted was rejected and Division Bench of this Court held that plaintiff may file a suit against the defendant for damages in which the defendants would be debarred from raising the plea of limitation. Thereafter fresh suit was filed on 19.11.1987 claiming damages for Rs.13,05,000/- which amount included the investment made, stock purchased, sum spent on tools and the profit which would have been earned etc. It was submitted by the plaintiff that average income from sale of cars and spare parts was Rs.3,00,000 per annum, for three years it was quantified to be Rs.9,00,000, interest was also claimed.