HARI SHANKAR PRASAD,J. - (1.) THIS appeal at the instance of appellant is directed against the judgment dated 13.4.2000 and decree dated 20.4.2000 passed in Money Suit No. 176 of 1987 whereby and whereunder the 2nd Sub -Ordinate Judge, Bokaro at Chas decreed the suit.
(2.) THE case of the plaintiff in brief is that plaintiff is a Government Undertaking Company which was entrusted with a large number of construction work within the Bokaro Steel Plant. The plaintiff was required to engage different types of machineries, cranes, tractors, shovels, etc. These machineries always remained engaged in the premises of Bokaro Steel Plant and they were never used on any public road. The Government of Bihar after due consideration, exempted certain type of vehicles from road tax which are engaged only within the enclosed premises of mines and tractors and issued a circular under letter No. AZ3030/66 PT. -4830, dated 31.8.1966 of Bihar Political Department to all the taxing authorities. It is stated that the defendant Nos. 3 through Superintendent of Police, Dhanbad (at that Lime Bokaro was under the jurisdiction of Dhanbad Division) insisted upon plaintiff to pay road tax of all the vehicles which were plying within the B.S.L. Plant. Further case of the plaintiff is that plaintiff wrote a letter to the State Transport Commissioner and Superintendent of Police. Bokaro for deferring the realization of road tax for such vehicles which were exempted from road tax but defendant did not accept request and the plaintiff under compulsion deposited altogether Rs. 4,77,852.25 paise towards road tax of those vehicles vide different challans as detailed in annexure of the plaint and thereafter plaintiff filed Title Suit No. 69 of 1979 in the Court of Sub Judge, Dhanbad of declaration that the action of defendant for insisting payment of road tax in respect of the vehicles as described in the schedule of the plaintiff of Title Suit No. 69 of 1979 is illegal, unjust arid arbitrary. The defendants appeared and contested the , suit which was decreed in favour of the plaintiff vide judgment and decree dated 27.4.1982 by the learned Sub Judge -II, Dhanbad which was further confirmed in Title Appeal No. 45 of 1982 vide judgment and decree dated 9.2.1985/26.3.1985 by the learned ADJ, 7th, Dhanbad, thus the payment of Rs. 4,77,852.25 paise under different challans towards road tax was under duress and not a voluntary gratuitous payment. Further case of the plaintiff is that plaintiff under letter No. HSCL/ARE/ 58 WS/6 -V/05/83 -206 dated 19/21.1.1983 requested the defendants to refund the said amount but instead of refunding the amount the Special Transport Officer of the defendant asked the plaintiff to continue to pay the road taxes. Thereafter, the plaintiff served a legal notice under Section 80, CPC to the defendant for refund of the said amount and thereby also intimated that in case of failure on the part of the defendant, the plaintiff will file suit for realization of the said amount. On the basis of the above pleadings, the plaintiff brought this suit for recovery of the amount of Rs. 4,77,852.25 paise illegally realized by the defendant as road tax with interest thereon at the rate of 6% per annum.
(3.) THE defendants appeared and filed joint written statement on behalf of the defendants No. 1, 2 and 3 denying the claim of the plaintiff. It is stated that the suit as framed is not maintainable as plaintiff has no cause of action or Locus standi to file the suit and the suit is barred by law of limitation and principles of estoppel, waiver and acquiescence. The suit is also barred by law of res judicata, provisions of Specific Relief Act, provisions of M.V. Act and for want of notice under Section 80, CPC.;