L BIAKCHHUNGA Vs. STATE OF MIZORAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal while registering a challenge to the judgment and order dated 27.6.2003 passed by the learned Additional District Magistrate (Judicial), Aizawl, in RFA 5/2003 raises a question of considerable moment relating to the applicability of the Limitation Act, 1963, to the State of Mizoram. By the impugned judgment and order, the learned Appellate Court affirmed the judgment and order of the learned Trial Court dismissing the suit of the appellant/plaintiff amongst others being barred by limitation.

(2.) I have heard Mr. C. Lalramzauva, learned Counsel for the appellant and Mr. N. Sailo, learned Government Advocate for the respondents.

(3.) The pleaded facts are indispensable. The appellant/plaintiff instituted Money Suit Mo. 50/98 in the Court of the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Judicial), Aizawl, against the respondents praying for a decree inter alia for declaring that the respondents/ defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay a sum of Rs. 10,12,500/- on account of damages as well as a sum of Rs. 50,000/- on account of mental agony/suffering to him with interest @ 12% per annum calculable from 1. 8.90. The appellant's/plaintiff's case in short is that he is the proprietor cum manager of an Industrial concern named and styled "LB Press" engaged in printing of documents, books and other printing works assigned to him by the Government and other agencies. The respondent No. 2 and 5 being in need of forms and bills for their divisions under the Power and Electricity Department) hereafter referred to as the P & E Department), Government of Mizoram, by letter dated 2.7.90 addressed to the respondent/defendant No. 4 indicated their requirement and requested the latter to issue a No Objection Certificate for getting the printing works done by a private printing press. The question inter alia was for Service connection bill books numbering fifty thousand. As the establishment of the respondent/defendant No. 4 was not in aposition to meet the requirement of the P&E Department, a tender notice was floated in response where to a number of private printing press owners including the petitioner submitted their tenders. Accordingly the works were allotted to different private press owners in course of which the appellant/plaintiff was also allotted the printing works of twenty five thousand Service Connection [Bill Books @ Rs. 4.50/- per book. The work orders issued by the Respondent/defendant No. 4 on 23.7.90 to the above effect stipulated the completion period to be three weeks. According to the appellant/plaintiff, he immediately got to work and collect the required materials such as papers and other ancillary articles for which he incurred an expenditure of Rs. 4,00,000/- approximately. The appellant/plaintiff asserted that because of his untiring efforts the works could be completed within the period of three weeks and thereafter he intimated the authorities of the P & E Department about the same. Just before the appellant/plaintiff was contemplating to submit the bill for the works done, the respondent/defendant No. 5 by communication dated 5.9.1990 intimated the respondert/defendant No. 3 about some modifications in the earlier requisition scaling down the requirement of service connection bill books to 100 instead of twenty five thousand as originally placed. The pleaded case of the appellant/ plaintiff is that thereafter the respondent/defendant No. 5 by communication dated 7.9.91 cancelled the work order dated 27.3.90. Consequently thereto, the respondent/defendant No. 5 only accepted 100 service connection bill books printed by the appellant/plaintiff and was paid for the same alone. The appetllant/ plaintiff being aggrieved submitted a representation on 27.2.91 before the respondent/ defendant No. 5 contending that such unforeseen cancellation had resulted in heavy financial loss to him in view of the investments already made. As there was no response to the representation, the appellant/plaintiff approached the respondents/defendants on several occasions pleading before them to accept the bill for twenty five thousand service connection bill books printed by him. He followed up his request by submitting a representation on 20.11.97 before the respondent/ defendant No. 5. As his request remained unheeded, he eventually served a notice dated 9.1.98 before the respondent/defendants under Section 80 CPC and thereafter filed the suit. According to him, the cause of action therefor had arisen on 23.7.90, the date of the work order and finally on 7.9.91 when the same was cancelled. According to him, because of the illegal and arbitrary action of the respondents/defendants, he suffered a loss of Rs. 10,12,500/- besides mental agony and harassment.