TUKARAM S O HARIHARRAO DEO Vs. AURANGABAD MUNICIPAL COUNCIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Revision Application is preferred against the order of learned Civil Judge, Senior Division Aurangabad made on 14th February, 1974 in Small Cause Suit No. 416 of 1973. By the said order the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, held that the suit was barred by the law of limitation and dismissed the same, directing the parties to bear their own costs of the same. A few facts may be stated :

(2.) The plaintiffs suit was in respect of two amounts of Rs. 577/- and Rs. 11/- which he had paid to the defendant, the Aurangabad Municipal Council, on 26th July, 1969 and 16th February, 1970. In the plaint the plaintiff claimed to have made the payment under coercion and bona fide under mistake of law . Subsequently in para 6 of the plaint, the plaintiff goes on to say that the defendant is not entitled to levy and collect the said amount as planning fees and that this aspect of the matter came to the knowledge of the plaintiff on 1st November, 1972 when a certain judgment was given by the Bombay High Court which is referred to in the said para. The plaintiff claims that the limitation runs against him from the date of knowledge of the said judgment and that accordingly the suit which was filed in September 1973 is in time.

(3.) The learned Advocate for the petitioner/plaintiff placed reliance on the observations to be found in paragraphs 28 and 34 of the decision in (M/s. K.S. Venkataraman and Company (Private) Ltd. v. State of Madras) A.I.R. 1966 S.C. 1089. The Supreme Court in the said decision was dealing with a suit for refund of tax purportedly paid under a mistaken belief that in law the tax was payable. According to the Supreme Court, the claim in the suit was governed by Article 96 and not Article 62 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1908, and time would run from the date on which the mistake became known. The article equivalent to Article 62 of the Limitation Act, 1908, is Article 24 of the Limitation Act, 1963. There is no corresponding Article to Article 96 (of the Act of 1908), but it was submitted by Mr. Agrawal that the residuary Article 113 would apply and in accordance with the decision of the Supreme Court in M/s. K.S. Venkatraman & Companys case the right to sue must be deemed to have accrued to the plaintiff when he came to know of the decision of the High Court.