IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA. RFA No.303 of 2003 Cross Objections No. 304/2003 Date of Decision : August 22, 2008 Satluj Jal Vidyut Nigam Ld. …Appellant. Versus: Gian Chand & others …Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the appellant : Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Advocate. For respondent No 1. Mr. G. D. Verma, Sr. Advocate with Mr. B. C. Verma, Advocate. For respondent No.2 : Mr. R. K. Bawa, Advocate General with Mr. Vivek Thakur, Addl. A. G. and Mr. Anil Jaswal, Dy. A.G. Sanjay Karol, J. (Oral) The present appeal arises out of the impugned judgment and decree dated 26.4.2003 passed by the District Judge, Kinnaur Civil Division at Rampur Bushahr, H. P. in Civil Suit No. 01 of 2002 titled as Gian Chand Vs. State of H.P. & another, decreeing the plaintiff’s suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.3,29,700/-. The plaintiff’s property situate on land comprised in Khata/Khatauni No. 21 min/50, Khasra No. 619/447, measuring 0-00-64 hectare, at Mauza Sungra (Bhabanagar), Tehsil Nichar, 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 Distt. Kinnaur, H.P. was allegedly damaged due to the excavation, digging and blasting work carried out by the defendant-Nathpa Jhakri Power Corporation (appellant herein). The said defendant was setting-up a Hydro Power Project in the area. The plaintiff’s claim was partly acknowledged by the said defendant and some compensation, after carrying out the survey was paid to him. Being dis-satisfied, the plaintiff filed a suit claiming a sum of Rs.3,29,700/-, which stands decreed by the Court below. Learned counsel for the appellant has challenged the impugned judgment primarily on the ground that the suit was barred by limitation and he has relied upon the judgment delivered by this Court in RFA No. 343 of 2003 titled as S.J.V.N. Ltd. v. Roop Singh Negi and another, decided on 29.6.2004. I have heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the record. The cited judgment strictly is not on the facts of the present case. From the record, it is evident that the issue with regard to the limitation was not framed by the Court below. The issues framed by the Court are being reproduced as under:- 1. Whether the house of the plaintiff had been damaged on account of act of digging, excavation and blasting carried out by defendant No.2? …….OPP 2. If issue No. 1 is proved, to what amount of compensation and from whom is the plaintiff entitled to? ………OPP 3. Whether the plaintiff is estopped from instituting the suit by his act and conduct? ……OPD-2 3 4. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action against defendant No.1? ……OPD-1 5. Relief. Mr. G. D. Verma, learned senior counsel for respondent No.1 has submitted that the plea of limitation was not specifically raised in the written statement, which fact though stands disputed by Mr. Ramakant Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant. Be that as it may be, the fact of the matter is that the learned District Judge has considered the plea of limitation without framing the issue and affording an opportunity to the parties to prove the same. I am of the considered view that the matter needs to be remanded back to the Court below for the said purpose. Learned counsel for the parties are in agreement that the findings of facts recorded by the Court below, on all the issues be set-aside and the matter be remanded back for consideration afresh on all the issues after affording due opportunity to the parties to take all such steps as may be necessary for proper adjudication of the controversy in issue. Accordingly, the impugned judgment and decree is set-aside. The plaintiff’s suit is restored to its original position. Parties through their learned counsels are directed to appear before the trial Court on 29th September, 2008. The record be sent back immediately along with a copy of this judgment. 4 The suit pertains to the year 2002. It is expected of the Court below to dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible. The amount deposited pursuant to the orders of this Court be refunded to the appellant within three weeks along with upto date interest. The Court fee be refunded to the parties in accordance with law. The cross-objections and the present appeal are accordingly disposed of with the aforesaid observations, so also the pending application. ( Sanjay Karol ), Judge. August 22, 2008. (rana)