- (1.) This first appeal arises out of a judgment dismissing the plaintiff's suit holding the same as time barred under Issue No. 4. However, the learned trial Court decided issue Nos. 1, 2, 3, & 5 in favour of the plaintiff.
(2.) Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that, Mohammad Aman (appellant-plaintiff), being a contractor, is allegedly engaged in the business of supply of tendu leaves. Admitted facts are that the respondent accorded a contract in favour of the appellant on 20-4-1972 for supply of tendu leaves, and in pursuance thereof, the appellant deposited a sum of Rs. 50,000/- as security on May 20, 1972 through receipt No. 1283; that the appellant completed his part of contract for him but, a dispute arose and thereby a settlement in between the appellant & the respondent was arrived at on June 10, 1974 with certain terms for making payment to the appellant for the tendu leaves supplied by him. It has been averred in the plaint that the transaction as per the settlement took its due time for its completion, and after completion of the transaction as per the settlement, the appellant represented the respondent-department for redeeming the security to the tune of Rs. 50,000/-but, the same was not paid to him despite his persistent and tireless efforts by way of series of letters-cum-reminders. Ultimately, the respondent sent a letter dated the 21st May, 1976 to the appellant asking him to lift tendue leaves of equivalent value of security deposit worth Rs. 50,000/-. To this letter, the appellant allegedly has not agreed and a notice through counsel was sent on July 18, 1977 to the respondent for payment of the security deposit. In reply to the appellant's notice, the respondent declined to make the requisite payment to the appel lant and it culiminated into institution of civil suit on behalf of the plaintiff for recovery of Rs. 50,000/- plus Rs. 10,000/- towards interest @ 12% p. a.
(3.) The defendant-respondent contested the suit on various grounds urged in the written statement including the plea as to the limitation. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, issues were framed. To prove first three issues, the burden was on the defendant and the rest were to be proved by the plaintiff. After recording the evidence of the parties and hearing both the parties, the learned trial Court (Addl. Sess. Judge No. 2, Jaipur City Jaipur) vide its judgment dated the 16th December, 1980, decided all the issues in favour of the plaintiff except the issue as to the limitation. Under issue No. 4 the learned trial Court deciding it against the plaintiff, held the suit, itself, as time-barred, and it dismissed the suit. Hence this appeal is confined to the findings arrived at by the lower court under issue No. 4.;