Arindam Mukherjee, J. - (1.) The appeal is at the instance of the defendants challenging a decree passed in a suit, inter alia, claiming damages. The suit was filed by the respondent/plaintiff.
(2.) The brief facts leading to filing of the above suit and the decree passed therein are as follows:- i) Pursuant to a tender notice dated 15th July, 2004 for engagement of Professional Letter Writer (in short 'PLW') at Kolkata GPO for a period of three years with effect from 1st September, 2004, the respondent/plaintiff emerged successful and was allotted the south verandah of the Kolkata GPO to operate as a PLW. The rent to be paid in advance for one year for such work by the respondent/plaintiff was Rs.12,340/-. The respondent/plaintiff was to operate from the south verandah of Kolkata GPO as PLW with four others. ii) The postal authorities, while the respondent/plaintiff was operating as PLW received a complaint from one Anil Sharma alleging misappropriation of Rs. 1300/- by the respondent/plaintiff from an insured letter which the said Anil Sharma had entrusted the respondent/plaintiff to write and sent. iii) After receiving the complaint the postal authorities terminated the permission of the respondent/plaintiff to operate as PLW on 4th March, 2005, inter alia, invoking the provisions of Clause D of the offer letter bearing no. G -1/P.L.W/2004-05, dated 11th August, 2004. iv) Several round of litigations at the instance of the respondent/plaintiff followed subsequent to the termination. v) Initially by an order dated 6th July, 2007 passed in W.P. No. 6082 (W) of 2005 filed by the respondent/plaintiff challenging the letter of termination, the said order of termination was set aside. The director, Kolkata GPO was directed to consider the matter afresh upon giving the respondent/plaintiff an opportunity of being heard upon making available to him the copies of the complaint which formed the basis of the proceeding against him. The director, Kolkata GPO was also directed to give his decision within a period of eight weeks from the date of the communication of the order. It was further directed that till the matter was finally resolved, the petitioner be restrained from operating as PLW. vi) The decision of the director, Kolkata GPO contained in a memo dated 11th September, 2007 again terminating the contract of the respondent/plaintiff was served on the respondent/plaintiff on 13th September, 2007. Upon receiving such order the respondent/plaintiff again challenged the same by filing a writ petition being W.P. No. 22355 (W) of 2007 before this Hon'ble Court. vii) The order dated 11th September, 2007 was set aside by an order dated 29th August, 2008 passed by this Court, inter alia, directing the director of Kolkata GPO to consider the matter in dispute afresh by passing a speaking order after giving a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The order, however, retained the direction against the appellant/plaintiff from not operating as PLW. viii) The director Kolkata GPO after considering the matter again passed an order on 24th/ 27th October, 2008. This order was again challenged by the respondent/plaintiff by filing a writ petition being W.P. No. 28446 (W) of 2008 before this Hon'ble Court. The said writ petition was dismissed by judgment and order dated 2nd September, 2009. ix) Challenging the said order the respondent/plaintiff filed an appeal therefrom which was allowed by an order dated 24th/27th December, 2010 by setting aside the order passed by the director, Kolkata GPO on 27th October, 2008. x) Records reveal that no further steps against the respondent/plaintiff was taken by the appellants/defendants. xi) The respondent/plaintiff thereafter served the appellants/defendants with a demand for justice and the same on being left unaddressed filed a writ petition being W.P. No. 6363 (W) of 2011, inter alia, claiming compensation for being prevented from operating as PLW. This writ petition was dismissed by an order dated 25th April, 2012. The dismissal order was challenged by the respondent/plaintiff by filing an appeal. The appeal so filed was dismissed by an order dated 1st August, 2013. xii) The Special Leave Petition being SLP No. 37284 of 2013 filed by the respondent/plaintiff challenging the order made in the appeal which was also dismissed by a judgment and order dated 3rd March, 2014 by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. xiii) Thereafter, the plaintiff filed the instant suit, after issuing a notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The suit was decreed ex parte on 16th February, 2015. xiv) The said decree was put into execution by the respondent/plaintiff. On receiving a copy of the execution application, the appellants/defendants contended the decree to be an ex parte decree and challenged the same. The said decree was ultimately set aside by granting the appellants/defendants to contest the suit. The respondent/plaintiff was allowed a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- as damages together with interest thereon at the rate of six per cent with simple interest from 1st October, 2007 till realization by a decree dated 16th February,2015. xv) The suit was subsequently heard in the presence of the appellants/defendants which culminated into a decree dated 23rd November, 2017 being under challenge in the instant appeal.
(3.) Before us, the appellants have urged two grounds; i) the claim of the respondent/plaintiff is barred by limitation ii) the respondent/plaintiff is not entitled to any damages;;