- (1.) The first appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 14.10.1999 passed by Shri S.P. Singh, Sub Judge-II, Saraikela in Money Suit No. 2/95/S.R.1/97, by which judgment the learned Sub Judge dismissed the suit on contest with cost.
(2.) It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the learned Sub Judge wrongly dismissed the suit giving a finding that the suit is barred by law of limitation and decided issue No. 3 against the plaintiff-appellant. Learned Counsel has further submitted that the learned Sub Judge also committed an error of law in deciding issue No. 4 that the court at Saraikela had no jurisdiction to try the suit and as such the judgment of dismissal is bad in law and only fit to be set aside and the appellant-plaintiff is entitled to get a decree for refund security amount of Rs. 5.75 lakhs with defendant No. 1-Andhra Oxygen Pvt. Ltd. which was deposited with him as per the agreement entered into between the parties.
(3.) On the other hand, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents-defendants has submitted that as per the agreement between the parties the machine i.e. Air Compressor Machine was installed in the premises of the plaintiff at Gamharia by the defendant No. 1-Company on the condition that he will return the same in workable condition, but the same is not returned in workable condition. Then, the respondent-defendant will be liable to claim damages for the same and entitled to get the cost of the repair of the machine. Admittedly, the machine was dismantled before arrival of engineer of respondent No. 1-defendant No. 1 and subsequently respondent incurred a heavy expenditure in repair of the Air Compressor Machine. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondents-defendants further submitted that the suit was obviously time barred and it was filed as an afterthought only to harass the defendant No. 2-Asiatic Oxygen Limited due to their personal differences. Learned Counsel for the respondents-defendants further submitted that the plaintiff-Bihar Air Products Ltd. filed several criminal and civil cases against defendant No. 2 only to harass the defendant No. 2 and this was also one such suit.;