IN THE HIGH COUBT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE DATED THIS THE 1575 DAY OF SEPTEIVEBER. 20.10 PRESENT THE I-i0N'BLE MRJUSTICE K.L.MANJI§R'AT:IfI. --B B- AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RFANo.1:2_g_t'3_Q[2O'G4V: . BETWEEN: B B B 1. Airports Authority of 1ndi'a,_ _ , or Bangalore Airport, Bangalore 4'-V 560 Q1'? By Airport Director, Ba11ga.Iore,'-- _ ' Mr.B.P.Bhagat.'AA._V V 2. Airpor'iS'VAut:oi}iorir):};'fgo'f Rajiv'-Gandhi V Bhayarl. '_ " Safdarjung A1rpoI*t:;.Nev,v:1"De1.3;1i -- 1 10 022, By Airport Director; .Bar1"ga1ore, Mr.B.P.Bhagat. . _ ~ " '~ 3. Authori' ' india, V' «Regioriai Office. ;SoutherI'1 _Reg"1on, I " ATSgACoinpIe).:;..NIeenaba1<karn, Chennai '~-B1600 027. I3y«.Airport Director, Bangalore: Mr.B..P.!:_3hagat. APPELLANTS _ S11. Sreevatsa, Adv. for Sreevatsa Assts. & " _Bir<:i3r Aiyappa, Advs.) .4--v...,«'..'............. " 14TM/s.wHEELs-REN'1'~A~cAR, (A Division of Transport Corporation of India), No.8, Union Street, Off Infantry Road, Bangalore -- 560 001. RESPONDENT
{By Sri Somashekar, Adv. for Sri S.N.MurE;hy Assts.}_ J-V ..
This RFA is filed under Section 96′–‘CPCf~.oagaiii.st
judgment and decree dated .:04;–1.2.2%)03y “passed. -in j
o.s.No.1294/1995 on the file of the ,X}{_VIi_Addi., ..cix.¢i1
Judge, Bangalore (CCH–9}, decreelngg th_e”suit’–foi*. .reco\;f’ery”Vof
money.
This RITA coming on for hearing thislday’; J.,
delivered the fo11owing:~ _ ..
The legalityarid judgment and decree
dated om2.y2;o*os Additional City Civil
Judge, 1995 is called in question in
this appealrx’ .
it A V “~=App'”e11an;s weremthe defendants in the suit.
2 ‘heard the learned Senior Counsel iVIr.Sreevatsa
-vappearingtflfor: the appellants and i\/Ir.Sornashekar, learned
it it ” licourisel afipearing for the respondent.
V. The facts leading to this case are as hereunder:
. sum of Rs.1,25,266/~ was paid by the p1aintiff–co1npany to
the defendants towards royalty, a sum of Rs.31,392/– under
{V
three fixed deposit of Rs.l0,464/– each was paid and a’*su1n of
Rs. 1,000/– was paid towards electricity charges.
amount was paid by the plaintiff to the defendants a*
counter/ space and a parking area -to do the l_)usinessv–.in car i j
rental service in the Airport of Banggalore§’ll
space to be allotted by the lgde_fe.ndants.__to the
aforesaid deposits were made by.tl’le’pvpla§_ntiff,l ‘b’ut_unfortunately,
the defendants could to the plaintiff on
account of the suitinstituted Rental Service,
Bangalore, in, of the City Civil
Court, Bangalarg. was granted in the said
suit. till the defendants filed a memo in
the year therein –M/s.Manju Car
Rental; ‘Service, Bangalore, would be evicted under due process
of «javv. ;’l’.l:C_ont_ending that on account of the interim order
grant__cr_jl ‘in””eVarl{er:”suit filed by M/s.Manju Car Rental Service,
_ Bangalore; a~ppellants–defendants could not provide the space to
plaintiff and on the ground that the plaintiff has suffered
_ account of not providing space to it, the plaintiff has
if filed a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.3,05,654/– along with
“interest at 18% pa f;/
VVVVVVV 4 VVVVVVV
5. Appellants~–defendants on service of notice, contested the
suityaccepting the amount of Rs.2,01,794/– which paid as
deposits to provide the space to the plaintiff to
car rental service and also admitted that the ,
provided to the plaintiff on account ofttinistitutioln of :’suit,_l>y
M / s.Manju Car Rental Service,»Bangalore,l”in / ;
and the appellants further respondent.
plaintiff has not sustained ‘ appellants
request the Courtpto disrniss also resisted
the suit on the ‘filedilby the plaintiff was
barred by lirftitatgiolnll sirlcejthe isvfvinlstituted in the year 1995
to recover the fs’ecuri’ty -paid in the month of March,
1990. Ame suiti-sf ‘net tiledfvvithin the period of three years, it
was cgoritended appellants that the suit filed by the
pp’lai_ntiff by limitation.
pleadings of the parties, the trial Court
V _ framed thefollowing issues:
., i}. ll Whether the plaintiff proves that he is entitled for
l the advance royalty, security deposit and electricity
charges?
ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for damages?
fig’,
iii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for interest at 18%
pa. as claimed on items 9(a) to 9[c)? H
iv) Whether the suit is bad for non–joinder~~oi
party i.e. M/s.l\/Ianju Taxi Service’.?W_T’~–.,. in
v) Whether the defendants; that-I’c–or1tract”VcVou?.d it
not be performed because of, the i»r,I_teri’r:”; order in
O.S.No.1792/1990′?
vi) Whether the *’defend’ant”hroyes,_that the ‘suit claim is
time barred? t id W
vii] To _what*re1ief an.d,:’,.order~»vtheV péarties are entitled for?
7. In:’order« _ contentions, on behalf of
plaintiff,vVV’xone._ was examined as P.W.1 and he
relied upon ‘E:1:s.Pl. to on behalf of defendants, no oral
Q1» d.:§ci1I1.1er1t,ary eyic}e–nce was let in. The Trial Court, after
.Ccon.side,rin,:g’theiievidence let in by the parties held issue No.1 in
affirmative, ‘issire No.2 innegative and in regard to issue No.3
Tthe held that the respondent–plaintiff is entitled to claim
V’ :.intere’s.t from 17.03.1994, issue No.4 and 6 in negative, issue
affirmative. Ultimately, the suit came to be decreed only
a sum of Rs.2,0l,’794/- with interest at 6% p.a. from the
6,.
question is when actually the cause of action arose for the
plaintiff to institute the suit. So far as this point is concerned,
it is not in dispute that the appellants
security deposit from the plaintiff did not inforin’-the
take back the security deposit paidbyfit’ on ‘acc-:0ufn’t”.of_thVe suit if
instituted by M/s.Manju Car Rentaiififierkrices. .’Eve11
when the space was not to the
defendants, in all faimesatyhthe beinga public sector
undertaking of the Uniofnfffoff refunded the
amount to the pvlaintiff knowledge that it
cannot llllitliout doing so, the
defendants have ..security deposit amount. Be that
as it may, it cisiithefcase, of plaintiff that the defendants went
_ on prgonlising they’ Vpfaiintiff to provide space after evicting
Rental Services since in the year 1994 a memo
defendants in the suit filed by M/s.Manju Car
_ Rental as per Ex.P18. Therefore, the suit filed by the
if H iv 4,” ‘ ~- plaintiff was maintainabfe.
“f:”12V,; These facts are not in dispute. When this factual aspects
7,are not in dispute, we are of the opinion that there was no cause
of action for the plaintiff to file the suit earlier as the defendants
%’
at no point of time refused to allot the space which was
earmarked in favour of the plaintiff. In the cireu;n”stéi11E:eS;A.we
are of the opinion that the Trial Court is justified-.’in
the suit filed by the plaintiff was wellwitliliné tt&rnevJ
13. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. to llbettlrt.
their costs.
p Sdfl
i \ J11 flog;
M ggéi
Juflqe
EPKS