IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU A.S.Nos.54 AND 156 OF 2006 Date:01-03-2011 A.S.No.54 OF 2006:- Between:- M.B.Kodandaramaiah ..Appellant/defendant No.4 And Smt Rao Prameela Rao and others .. Respondents/plaintiff and defendant Nos.1 to 3 and A.S.No.156 OF 2006:- Between:- Dock Labour Board, rep.by its Deputy Chairman, Dock Labour Board, Visakhapatnam. ..Appellant/defendant No.2 And Smt Rao Prameela Rao and others .. Respondents/plaintiff and defendant Nos.2 to 4 COMMON JUDGMENT: These appeals, under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, (for short, ‘C.P.C.’) are directed by defendant Nos.4 and 2 respectively against the judgment and decree dated 07.10.2005 in O.S.No.124 of 2000 on the file of IX Additional District and Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court), Visakhapatnam, whereunder and whereby an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- was granted directing the appellants/defendants 4 and 2 jointly and severally to pay the compensation to the 1st respondent/plaintiff. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and respondents. 3. On 24.10.1990, appellant/4th defendant abused the 1st respondent/plaintiff in her caste name and also tried to outrage her modesty, on which date the 1st respondent/plaintiff lodged a complaint, which was registered as Crime No.116 of 1990. Appellant/4th defendant also lodged a complaint against the 1st respondent/plaintiff and the police registered a case in Crime No.117 of 1990. Basing on the complaint of the appellant/4th defendant, 2nd defendant suspended the 1st respondent/plaintiff on 26.10.1990 and a charge sheet was issued to the 1st respondent/plaintiff on 02.11.1990, for which a detailed explanation was given on 27-11-1990. The 1st respondent/plaintiff was convicted in C.C.No.188 of 1993, whereas the appellant/4th defendant was acquitted in Crime No.116 of 1990. 1st respondent/plaintiff filed C.A.No.120 of 1994 and the same was allowed. Aggrieved by the same, the appellant/4th defendant filed a revision and the same was dismissed. Hence, the suit was filed by the 1st respondent/plaintiff for recovery of damages of Rs.15,00,000/- on 23.10.2000. 4. The main grievance of the appellants is that the limitation aspect has not been considered by the trial Court with reference to the pleadings available on record and therefore, they pray to remand the matter. 5. In the factual background, the trial Court framed an issue with regard to limitation aspect, which reads as follows: “Whether the suit is barred by limitation?” 6. As seen from the impugned judgment, though the trial Court adverted to the general principles of limitation aspect, considering the facts of the case, it came to the conclusion that Article 113 of the Limitation Act, 1963 applies to the case and held that the 1st respondent/plaintiff’s suit is in time. But there were no reasons given for arriving to such conclusion. Right to reason is an indispensable part of sound judicial system. The other party must know for what reason the case went against him. That finding of the trial Court is not based upon the pleadings and evidence available on record. There is totally non appreciation of evidence with regard to the limitation aspect. Therefore, the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside. 7. Accordingly, both appeals are allowed setting aside the judgment and decree dated 07.10.2005 in O.S.No.124 of 2000 on the file of IX Additional District and Sessions Judge, (Fast Track Court), Visakhapatnam. No costs. 8. However, the matter is remanded to the trial Court to consider the limitation aspect with reference to the pleadings and evidence, preferably within a period of eight (8) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, after giving due opportunity to both the parties, and consider other issues basing on the admissible evidence available on record, because the contention of the learned Counsel for the appellants is that the material in connection with the departmental proceedings has been taken into consideration for the purpose of adjudication in the suit. The trial Court ought not to have taken into consideration the findings or observations of the departmental proceedings for the purpose of deciding the issues involved in the suit for the reason that they have to be dealt with by a separate forum and further the departmental proceedings have not attained finality. _______________ K.C. BHANU, J 1st March, 2011 AMD/KSP THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C.BHANU A.S.Nos.54 AND 156 OF 2006 Date:01-03-2011 AMD/KSP