Bangalore District Court
The Karnataka Urban Water Supply And vs Sri L.R.Rajanna on 9 October, 2019
IN THE COURT OF THE XIX ADDL. CITY CIVIL &
SESSIONS JUDGE AT BANGALORE CITY : (CCH.18)
Dated this 9th day of October, 2019.
Present
SRI.DINESH HEGDE, B.A.,LL.B.,
XIX ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE,
BANGALORE CITY.
O.S.NO.8751/2006
PLAINTIFF : The Karnataka Urban Water Supply and
Drainage Board
Jalbhavan, No.6, 1st Stage,
1st Block, BTM Layout,
Bannerghatta Main Road,
Bangalore - 560 076.
Represented by its Managing Director
N.Jayaram I.A.S
(By Sri. H.M.Nataraj, Advocate)
-VS-
DEFENDANT : 1. Sri L.R.Rajanna
S/o Rangappa
Aged 55 years
R/at Sriranga Nilaya,
Banashankari 2nd Stage,
Tumkur - 572101.
Since dead represented by his legal
representatives.
1(a). Smt. Chinnathayamma
W/o Late L.R.Rajanna
Aged about 69 years.
1(b). Sri.L.R.Ravi Kumar
2
O.S.No.8751/2006
S/o Late L.R.Rajanna
Aged about 41 years.
Both are residing at:
'Sri Ranga Nilaya',
Banashankari 2nd Stage,
3rd Main Road, 4th Cross,
Tumkur (CMC), Tumkur.
(D.1(a) & (b) - By Sri.S.P.L.,
Advocate)
Date of Institution of the suit : 30/09/2006
Nature of the Suit : Money suit
Date of commencement of recording
of evidence : 13/8/2010
Date on which the Judgment was
pronounced : 9/10/2019
Year/s Month/s Day/s
Total Duration : 13 00 09
(Dinesh Hegde)
XIX Addl.City Civil & Sessions Judge,
Bangalore City.
3
O.S.No.8751/2006
JUDGMENT
This suit is filed by the plaintiff for recovery of money.
2. The case of plaintiff in nutshell:-
Plaintiff is a body corporate created and incorporated under the provisions of the Karnataka Urban Water Supply and Drainage Board Act 1973. The board is a Government statutory board created and incorporated with an object to provide for the establishment of a water supply and Drainage Board and the regulation and development of drinking water and drainage facilities in the urban areas of the state of Karnataka. The plaintiff has its own undertakings, men and materials to fulfill the object of the plaintiff. That the present suit is instituted to protect the public money on behalf of the government. The defendant was appointed as second division storekeeper of the plaintiff Board services, at Bangalore on 09-09-1977. Subsequent to appointment of the defendant he was transferred to the divisional store in Gulbarga for the period of 03-07-1995 to 29-09-1998, wherein he was 4 O.S.No.8751/2006 working as second division store keeper in the Division at Gulbarga. The defendant indulged in malpractices and illegal activities causing great injury and harm to the interest of the plaintiff. The defendant failed to submit the half yearly statement of the accounts for the period 3/96, 9/96 and 9/97 and also the prescribed annual statement. The fact was duly notified by the higher officers of the plaintiff herein to the defendant the statements were furnished which were not in accordance with the prescribed rules and regulations in that regard. The defendant had indulged in illegal activities committing omission and commission leading to utter failure of performance of duty as store superintendent as contemplated under store manual. The defendant has drastically failed in exercising due diligence, care and caution in the management of the activities as a store superintendent. Only due to dereliction of duty and utmost negligent on the part of the defendant herein the plaintiff was put in to loss as detailed herein under. At all 5 O.S.No.8751/2006 point of time the defendant was in total negligent in submitting statement of accounts carrying on duty in relating to the affairs of the division stores at Gulbarga.
3. Defendant had indulged in misappropriating the goods in the divisional stores at Gulbarga. Pursuant to which there was shortage of materials and goods worth Rs.15,91,238.13, such shortage of materials and goods from division store of Gulbarga was solely due to the misappropriation, dereliction of duty and also mainly due to misfeasons and malfeasons on the part of the defendant herein. The defendant being a responsible person working under such good office is the solely responsible for shortage and cause of loss to the plaintiff herein. The defendant is solely responsible to compensate the losses to the plaintiff. The defendant has failed to know the importance of the public money and materials involved and failed to take proper and due care in handling the same. The fact of shortage of materials was 6 O.S.No.8751/2006 notified by the internal audit wing of the Board and immediately action was ordered by the Board higher authority, in order to enquire in to the same to peruse further action. The defendant was also subjected to domestic inquiry and final inquiry report were arrayed and the same clearly indicates the fact of misappropriation of goods and involvement of the defendant in causing such damage, injury and loss to the plaintiff. The documents indicates the misappropriation of the materials belongs to the plaintiff worth Rs.15,91,238.13 and also direct involvement of the defendant for the said illegal act and his responsibility to duty compensate such laws and injury caused to the plaintiff. The cause of action of the suit arose on 17-09-2002, when the fact of misappropriation that is shortage of materials from the period, 03-07-1995 to 29-09-1998 of the defendant was duly notified and all subsequent dates when the defendant failed to compensate the same. The above suit arose partly at Bangalore, where the fact of misappropriation was notified 7 O.S.No.8751/2006 and document to that effect were reported. In view of the same this Hon'ble Court has jurisdiction to entertain and try the case. Pay the plaintiff the sum of Rs.15,91,238.13 (Rupees Fifteen lakhs ninety one thousand two hundred and thirty eight and thirteen paise only) together with interest at 18% per annum from the suit till the date of realization in the interest of justice and equity.-
4. After service of suit summons, defendant appeared through their counsel and filed written statement by contending that the defendant denies all allegations stated against him in the plaint by the plaintiff. It is submitted that the defendant herein was appointed as a Second Division Store Keeper of the Board Services at Bangalore, on 09-09-1977. Subsequent to the appointment of the defendant, he was transferred to the Divisional Stores in Gulbarga for the period 03-07-1995 to 29-09-1998, where he was working as Second Division Store Keeper in the Division at Gulbarga is true. The defendant having entered the service as Second Division 8 O.S.No.8751/2006 Store Keeper on 09-09-1977, has continued to work honestly and sincerely. He has maintained an unblemished good record of service, now being aged 54 years, he is hardly left within 5 years of service. On certain allegations initiated proceedings against the plaintiff, the plaintiff has not committed any misconduct nor has caused any loss or short of materials. The authority had initiated a Departmental Enquiry and has now completed by passing an order of dismissal of the plaintiff from service by its order dated 17-07-2002. It is wholly a non-speaking order without reference to the facts and circumstances of the case, reply given, evidence to lead and other relevant documents are not considered and now appeal is pending before the Board as against the said order of dismissal from service. The defendant while working in Dharwad Division was issued with a show cause notice by the plaintiff along with the charge memo and the statement of allegations and the list of witnesses and the documents, calling upon him to show cause as to why he 9 O.S.No.8751/2006 should not be proceeded departmentally. The charges four in number in substance make an allegation that the defendant while in charge of the store has failed to produce the statement of accounts within time. it was alleged that non-furnishing of statement of accounts within time resulted in causing shortage in the annual accounts and the board has suffered a loss of Rs.12,75,235/- and that he has not followed the manual, which was come to the knowledge in the internal audit and the report submitted on 29-07-1998. In this report it is clearly mentioned that the Store Keeper as well as the Accounts Superintendent are jointly responsible for causing shortage in the annual accounts. Since there was no involvement of any monitory misappropriation or misutilisation of any materials and the defendant having been falsely implicated he give his detailed reply along with statement regarding materials in shortage and in excess for the relevant period on 05-04-2000. 10
O.S.No.8751/2006
5. The defendant has discharged his duties in accordance with law and there is no monitory loss caused to Board. The defendant has also submitted monitory half yearly statements for the relevant periods to the Central Office. Since no shortages were made out by his immediate superiors in the statements submitted to them, no action was taken in that behalf and that the alleged shortage in caused only due to the difference between the book balance and the ground balance, but actually there is no shortage. In fact, some of the materials were in excess. At no point of time any amount of misappropriation was alleged against anybody. The plaintiff without being satisfied with the reply, appears to have taken a decision to proceed in the matter by initiating proceedings and an Inquiry Officer was appointed. The defendant had made a detailed representation to the authorities requesting for assistance of an advocate by his representation made on 05-07-2002, but the same was refused holding that there was no need 11 O.S.No.8751/2006 by their endorsement dated 27-07-2000, without allowing the defendant even to avail the service of Departmental colleague. Without affording him a reasonable opportunity of presenting his case before the enquiry, the Inquiry Officer proceeded with the enquiry by recording the statements of the witnesses hurriedly on 10-10-2000, 09- 11-2000, 25-11-2000, 12-03-2001 and 28-03-2001. Inquiry Officer has submitted his report holding that the charges leveled against the defendant are proved. Therefore, the plaintiff has issued a show-cause notice dated 18-04-2002 to the defendant calling upon him as to why action should not be taken against him. The defendant herein has suitably replied to the said show cause notice dated 03-05-2002, specifically pointing out that there is no shortage much less any loss caused to the plaintiff /Board by him and it was only a matter of plaintiff to reconcile the records and that he has further pointed out that the other persons and previous Store Keepers/Store Superintendents like Vastrad, Sri Tandav 12 O.S.No.8751/2006 Murthy, Sri Chandrakant, Sri Deshpande, Sri.Bokitigara, Sri Ansari, Sri Nagashetty Patil have not completed the half yearly accounts during their period and the shortages have continued to remain on record since several years, when the defendant was not working in the stores. He has further stated that he has already submitted his report and it was pointed out that at the relevant point of time there was no shortages and the authorities on enquiry having found that there is no shortage, sent all the relevant account papers to the Executive Officer as early as on 17-06-1998. As stated earlier he has once again pointed out in his reply that due to non-conciliation of the ground balance to that of book balance, the difference is shown, but factually and as a matter of fact, there is no loss caused to the Board.
6. On the contrary, the board has made a profit of nearly Rs.2,75,278/- being the value of the excess materials. Therefore, he has requested that the report need not to be accepted and the proceedings against him 13 O.S.No.8751/2006 be dropped. The disciplinary authority proceeds to accept the report without independent proper application of mind to the facts and circumstances of the case and without reference to the factual and statements submitted by the defendant, not only during the course of enquiry, but also by his replies to the notices issued to him and further without looking into the records and without assigning any reasons has passed the order dismissed the appellant from service by order dated 17-09-2002. The suit filed by the plaintiff is a result of misconception of facts and that the defendant is in no way connected with the allegations in the plaint and as such, the suit is liable to be dismissed with costs.
7. Based on the above pleadings, the following issues were framed:-
ISSUES
1. Whether the plaintiff proves that the defendant, while working as Stores Superintendent with the plaintiff board, was indulged in illegal activities in discharging his duties and as a result of his negligent act and such omission and 14 O.S.No.8751/2006 commission of acts, there was a shortage of materials and goods worth of Rs.15,91,238-13 in the Divisional Stores at Gulbarga, which has been found misappropriated by the defendant during his tenure of service from 03-07-1995 to 29-09-1998?
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the suit claim together with interest @ 18% p.a., as claimed?
3. What order or decree?
8. Registrar of the plaintiff's Board is examined as P.W.1. A witness is examined as P.W.2 and marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.17. Defendant has been examined as D.W.1. Ex.D.1 and Ex.D.2 are marked.
9. Heard the arguments and perused the records.
10. My findings on the above issues are as follows :-
Issue No.1 :- In the Negative ;
Issue No.2:- In the Negative ;
Issue No.3:- As per the final order for the following:-15
O.S.No.8751/2006 REASONS
11. ISSUE Nos.1 & 2:- These issues are taken up together as they inter related to each other.
It is specific case of plaintiff board that the defendant being the Store Superintendent of the plaintiff board has indulged in illegal activities in discharging his duties and as a result of his negligent act found shortage of goods worth Rs.15,91,238.13 in the division stores at Gulbarga which has been found misappropriated by him during his tenure of service from 03-07-1997 to 29-09- 1998. Hence, the plaintiff filed suit for recovery of money.
12. To prove the above issues the Registrar of the plaintiff board has been examined as P.W.1. He has stated that the defendant as appointed as a second division Store Keeper at Bangalore on 09-09-1997. He was placed as Store Superintendent at the Divisional Store in Gulbarga for the period of 03-07-1995 to 29-09-1998 in additional charge while working as Second Division Store Keeper in the Division at Gulbarga and during the said tenure the 16 O.S.No.8751/2006 defendant failed to submit half yearly statement and annual statement. He has further stated that the defendant has misappropriated the goods worth Rs.15,91,238.13. He has further stated that the shortage of materials was notified by the internal audit and the defendant was subjected to domestic enquiry and he was found guilty of misappropriation. Hence, the plaintiff filed suit for recovery of money.
13. Ex.P.1 is the authorization letter issued by the Managing Director of the plaintiff board to P.W.1 authorizing him to prosecute the above suit. On the basis of Ex.P.1 the P.W.1 has been examined. Exs.P.2 to P.6, Exs.P.9 to P.10 and Ex.P.15 are all self-attested copies by the Secretary of the Defendant Board and its Assistant Accounts Officer. Therefore, it is clear that original Exs.P.2 to P.6, P.9 to P.15 were not produced before the Court for appreciation of evidence. However, Ex.P.2 is the copy of a notice in which the date is also not disclosed. It reveal that, the Executive Engineer of the plaintiff Board at 17 O.S.No.8751/2006 Gulbarga issued a notice to the defendant and two others directing them to submit the half yearly statement and co- operate with account auditors. Ex.P.3 is another xerox certified copy by the Secretary of the plaintiff board is not properly legible. Ex.P.4 is the letter dated 04-05-1998 certified by the Secretary of the plaintiff board reveal that the reply as not been received by the Managing Director of the plaintiff board. Ex.P.5 is a copy of another letter dated 16-05-1998 reveal that the Executive Engineer of Gulbarga Division requesting the defendant and two others to submit the half yearly statement. Ex.P.6 is another letter dated 21-05-1998 also a Xerox copy attested by the Secretary of the plaintiff board reveal that within 3 days the defendant shall submitted his reply to the Managing Director.
14. Ex.P.7 is the office note submitted by the Chief Account Officer of plaintiff Board reveal that the defendant was the Second Division Assistant cum Store Superintendent in-charge was under suspension and in 18 O.S.No.8751/2006 obedience of the order of the plaintiff regarding discrepancies of half yearly returns of stock at Gulbarga Division have been verified for the period of March 1996, September 1996 and March 1997 from 13-07-1998 to 18- 07-1998. During the verification of the half yearly returns, the Register differs with that of the return submitted to Central Office in respect of 9 items valued at Rs.85,062/- comprising Rs.29,139/- being surplus and Rs.55,923/- as deficit. For the half yearly ending 03/1996 the deficit amount of Rs.1,32,795/- found. For the send half yearly ending 09/1996 the deficit of Rs.80,712/- was found. For the send half yearly ending 09/1996 deficit of Rs.1,90,760 was found. Accordingly, he has come to the conclusion that the closing balance for the half year ending 09/1995 (assuming correct), is not adopted as old balance for 03/1996 duly incorporating receipts and issues during ending half year in the half yearly register as well the return submitted to Central Office. Hence, he has concluded that overall shortage of as on 31-03-1997 is 19 O.S.No.8751/2006 worth Rs.12,75,235.00. According to the Assistant Account Officer who prepared the Ex.P.8 the Audit report, the Store Keeper and Account Superintendent are personally responsible for the lapses. Further, he came to the conclusion that Executive Engineer is failed in his duties as required under the law. He has further come to the conclusion that Store Superintendent / Store Keeper is not well conversant with the store transactions needs immediate change of work.
15. Therefore, on perusal of the Ex.P.8, Executive Engineer also failed in his duty and Store Keeper is not well conversant with store transactions and his conclusion is based on the assumption of the statement ending for the year 09/1995. Therefore, it is clear that the Assistant Account Officer is not certain as to the clarity of the statement and its genuineness prior to the year ending 09/1995.
20
O.S.No.8751/2006
16. Ex.P.9 is the xerox copy of a statement duly signed by Assistant Accounts Officer of the plaintiff said to have been showing discrepancies in old balance statement compared with that of the Register ending 03/1996. Ex.P.10 is the alleged statement attested by the Assistant Accounts Officer. Ex.P.11 is the copy of the statement of the defendant submitted to Managing Director of the plaintiff in which the defendant has stated that he has already submitted the statement to the plaintiff. He has further stated that the previous statement was not handed over to him by the concerned official who was in-charge of the Store Keeper.
17. Ex.P.12 is the enquiry report reveals that an internal enquiry was conducted against the defendant by the competent enquiry authority. The enquiring authority held that the article of charge proved against the defendant. However, it is for the Managing Director to take into account the reconciliation have been submitted by the Delinquent Official, if he have official notice of it. 21
O.S.No.8751/2006 Ex.P.13 is the proceedings of the Managing Director of the plaintiff reveal that the enquiring report was placed before the Board Meeting held on 02-08-2002. The Board considered the enquiry report and decided to place before the Managing Director for passing appropriate orders. After considering the findings of the enquiry report and the gravity of the charges proved and grave irregularities committed by the delinquent official, it was decided to dismiss the defendant i.e. the Second Division Store Keeper from the services of the Board for the irregularities committed by him. Accordingly, the Managing Director passed an order on 07-09-2002 dismissing the defendant from the services with immediate effect and also initiate action by filing civil suit for recovery of losses caused to the plaintiff.
18. Ex.P.14 is an unofficial endorsement issued by the Financial Advisor and a Chief Account Officer of the plaintiff submitting the statement showing the non-receipt of materials in the stock register as per the charge list 22 O.S.No.8751/2006 marked at Ex.P.15. Ex.P.16 and P.17 are the orders of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka WP No.41604/2002 reveal that the defendant has challenged the order of the Managing Director passed in Ex.P.13 dated 17-09-2002. The Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka held that as per the rules, the order of termination is appealable before the proper authority. Accordingly, the Writ Petition was dismissed reserving liberty to the petitioner to prefer an appeal before the Board and Board was directed to dispose of the appeal within a period of 3 months from the date of its presentation.
19. During the evidence, the defendant has produced copy of a letter attested by Registrar of plaintiff Board marked at Ex.D.1 reveals that the Executive Engineer of the plaintiff Board addressed a letter to the Managing Director stating that the previous Store Keepers have also not maintained proper accounts. 23
O.S.No.8751/2006
20. In the cross-examination, P.W.1 has stated that the defendant was working as a Second Division Store Keeper. He do not know as to who was the Accounts Superintendent at the relevant time. He has admitted that as per the Rule 8(a) of PWD Store Manual, when the service of the store keeper have to determine a thorough verification of the stock should be made by the receiver or the store verifier in the manner prescribed in the stock verification. He denied the suggestion that this rule was not followed when the defendant was placed in-charge of the store keeper. He admitted that, as per the Ex.P.8 audit report, the store keeper and account superintendent are personally responsible for lapses or irregularities occurred. He has further stated that, the enquiry was also initiated against the Account Superintendent Sri.B.N.Kallur. He has further stated that in the audit report it is observed the lapses of the Executive Engineer who failed in his duties as required under Law and Board has also initiated inquiry against the Executive Engineer. The enquiry report 24 O.S.No.8751/2006 initiated against the Account Superintendent and the Executive Engineer is not placed before the Court. He has also admitted that, in the audit report, it is observed that store keeper is not well conversant with store transactions. It is also mentioned in the Audit report that immediate change of Account Superintendent and Store Keeper.
21. P.W.1 has further stated that he was working as Superintendent in Mysore when the misappropriation took place. He was participated as presenting officer in the departmental enquiry conducted against the defendant. He has admitted that Exs.P.2 to P.6 xerox attested copies. He has also admitted that Exs.P.2 to P.6 does not disclose the date of attestation. He denied the suggestion that the Exs.P.2 to 6 are created for the purpose of this suit. He has further stated that the shortage of materials is worth Rs.12,75,235/- but the plaintiff claimed Rs.15,91,238.13 due to typographical mistake. In the evidence also it is mentioned as same amount. He denied that the original 25 O.S.No.8751/2006 documents are not available and not existing in the office. However, the plaintiff has not produced the original documents.
22. Therefore, it is incumbent upon the plaintiff to produce the original documents of Exs.P.2 to P.6. The plaintiff has not produced the original documents for perusal of this Court in order to ascertain the genuineness of those documents and its contents as to ascertain the damages.
23. P.W.2 is the Assistant Account Officer of the plaintiff in his evidence stated that he verified the stock receipt, stock issue and half yearly stock returns. When it was compared with the half yearly returns, the shortage of store materials noticed worth Rs.12,75,235/-. In his cross- examination he has stated that D.N.Kallur was the Account Superintendent at the time of Audit. He do not know about the audit since from the formation of the plaintiff board. During the tenure of the Store Superintendent by name 26 O.S.No.8751/2006 Annachari, Ansari, B.N.Vasthrad, Chandrakanth Kulakarni, A.A.Bhuktigar, Thandavamurthy, Nagesha Shetty Patil, Chandrakanth Deshpande no audits were conducted. He do not know as to whether they submit half yearly statement or not. He further stated that the stock returns accounts will be checked by the Executive Engineer and if he found any discrepancies, he has to set-right and dispatch in to the Board. While conducting the audit, he verified the charge list submitted by the defendant. He further stated that during the audit he has not verified the indent and voucher.
24. In the cross-examination D.W.1 has stated that there was no store superintendent when he was working at Gulbarga Division and hence, the said charge was given to him to look after the Store Superintendent works. He admitted that the store superintendent is bound to submit half yearly statement. He has further stated that he furnished reconciliation statement to the plaintiff. He 27 O.S.No.8751/2006 denied the suggestion that he has misappropriated the store materials and caused loss to the plaintiff.
25. On perusal of the entire documents, it is clear that though the defendant was a Second Division Assistant, he was kept in-charge of the Store Superintendent charge. The audit report itself reveal that there are some other persons who were in active in-charge of the Superintendent post before the defendant took in- charge of the said post. The plaintiff has also failed to produce the original records pertaining to the stock register and disbursement of materials in to the custody of the defendant. Therefore, it is clear that it is only bald allegation against the defendant that he has misappropriated the materials entrusted to him. What are the materials entrusted to him is also not proved. The plaintiff has failed to prove that, during the tenure of defendant as store keeper has misappropriated the goods worth Rs.15,91,238.13. Therefore, consideration of awarding interest @ 18% does not arise.
28
O.S.No.8751/2006
26. Apart from the above findings, it is also necessary to find out whether the suit of the plaintiff is well within the time of limitation. The records reveal that the defendant filed IA No.5 under Order 7 Rule 11 R/w Section 151 of C.P.C. to reject the plaint on the ground that suit is barred by Law of limitation. After hearing both the sides, this Court vide order dated 22-01-2016 rejected the IA No.5 holding that plea of limitation always involves mixed question of law and facts and it cannot be decided in an interim application and it has to be decided only after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence of the both the parties.
27. Against the orders in IA No.5, the defendant preferred a Writ Petition before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in CRP No.69/2016 (IO). Ex.D.2 is the orders of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in CRP No.69/2016 (IO) wherein it was held that, 'this court find that no justifiable grounds are made out to interfere with the impugned 29 O.S.No.8751/2006 order. However, it would not come in the way of the petitioner herein to take a stand in the suit that he need not adduce any evidence and would argue the matter on merit. With such liberty will available to him, seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground that the suit is filed belatedly, is not permissible'.
28. Therefore, it is clear that the question of the limitation was also kept open and it has to be decided at this stage. No doubt, the defendant has not set up the limitation as a defence. However, it is well settled law that the point of limitation which requires to be considered by the Court even without such defence is set up in the written statement and even without there being any specific issue the court has to consider the question of limitation.
29. In the plaint, in para No.13 it is averred that the cause of action to file the suit arose on 17-09-2002 when the fact of misappropriation came to the knowledge of the 30 O.S.No.8751/2006 plaintiff. The period of limitation to file the present suit is 3 years. The plaintiff has pleaded the date of cause of action to file this suit as 17-06-2002. It is admitted fact that the suit was filed on 30-09-2006. On perusal of Ex.P.13, the proceedings of the Managing Director reveal that on 17-09-2006 he passed an order of dismissal of the defendant from the services and also directed to initiate action by filing a civil suit for recovery of losses caused to the plaintiff Board. Therefore, it is clear that suit is not filed within 3 years from 17-09-2002. During the cross- examination of D.W.1 much effort is made to elicit the reasons to save the period of limitation. According to the plaintiff, the Writ Petition filed by the defendant was pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka from 17-09-2002 to 10-04-2006 and hence, the period of limitation to file the suit is saved. On perusal of the Ex.P.16, the Writ Petition No.41604/2002 was pending before the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka and it was disposed on 10-04-2006. However, there was no stay of 31 O.S.No.8751/2006 the order of the Managing Director passing order for recovery of money from the defendant.
30. Under Section 3 of the Limitation Act 1963, subject to the provisions contending Section 4 to 24, every suit instituted, appeal preferred, and application made after the prescribed period shall be dismissed, although limitation has not been set up as a defence. Under Section 15 of the Limitation Act 1963, in computing the period of limitation of any suit, the institution or execution of which has been stayed by injunction or order, the time of the continuance of the injunction or order, the day on which it was issued or made or on the day on which it was withdrawn shall be excluded.
31. Under Section 23 of the Limitation Act 1963, in the case of a suit for compensation for an act which does not give rise to a cause of action unless some specific injury actually results there from, the period of limitation shall be computed from the time when the injury results. 32
O.S.No.8751/2006 On perusal of the plaint, admittedly, the cause of action arose on 17-09-2002. The suit was instituted for recovery of money from the defendant after lapse of 3 years. Hence, the suit of the plaintiff is hit by the Law of Limitation. Since the suit of the plaintiff is barred by the Law of Limitation, the plaintiff is not entitled for the relief claimed. For the above reasons, I answer Issue Nos. 1 and 2 in the Negative.
32. ISSUE No.3:- The plaintiff has failed to prove that due to misappropriation by the defendant, it has sustained loss of Rs.15,91,238.13. The suit is also barred the Law of Limitation. Hence, the plaintiff is not entitled for any relief. Therefore, I pass the following:-
ORDER Suit of the plaintiff is dismissed with the costs.
Draw decree accordingly.
(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcribed and computerized by her, corrected and then pronounced by me in the open Court on this the 9 th day of October, 2019.) (Dinesh Hegde) 33 O.S.No.8751/2006 XIX ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, ANGALORE CITY.
ANNEXURE List of Witnesses examined for the plaintiff :
P.W.1 - K.L.Thimmappa P.W.2 - K.R. Srinivas List of Documents exhibited for the plaintiff:
Ex.P.1 Authorization letter issued by
Managing Director
Ex.P.2 Notice
Ex.P.3 Copy of another notice
Ex.P.4 The show cause notice
Ex.P.5 Notice
Ex.P.6 Copy of another notice
Ex.P.7 Copy of U.O.Note
Ex.P.8 Copy of letter
Ex.P.9 The statement
Ex.P.10 Copy of the statement
Ex.P.11 Copy of proceedings
Ex.P.12 Enquiry repot
Ex.P.13 Proceedings of Managing Director
Ex.P.14 The Notes
Ex.P.15 Statement of non-receipt of
materials
Ex.P.16 Writ petition No.41604/2002
Ex.P.17 Writ petition No.41604/2002
List of Witnesses examined for the defendants:
D.W.1 - Sri.L.R.Rajanna 34 O.S.No.8751/2006 List of Documents exhibited for the defendants:
Ex.D.1 Certified copy of letter dated 17-05- 2011 issued by BWSSB Ex.D.2 Certified copy of order passed in CRP No.69/16 (Dinesh Hegde) XIX ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE CITY.35
O.S.No.8751/2006 Judgment pronounced in open court vide separate detailed judgment with the following operative portion:-
ORDER Suit of the plaintiff is dismissed with the costs. Draw decree accordingly.
(Dinesh Hegde) XIX ADDL.CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE CITY.