THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO C.C.C.A No. 35 OF 2001 AND TRANSFER C.C.C.A Nos.11 AND 12 OF 2002 COMMON JUDGMENT: All three (3) appeals arise out of a common judgment passed by the V Additional Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad in O.S.Nos.787 of 1993, 1178 of 1990 and 1179 of 1990. The second defendant is the appellant in CCCA 35 of 2001. The suits were filed for recovery of difference of the value of ground nut oil supplied by the plaintiffs to the appellant herein. The contention of the plaintiffs in all the suits is that the first defendant exercising the power under Clause 10(2) of A.P. Schedule Commodities (Licensing and Distribution) Order, 1982 directed the plaintiffs to supply to the second defendant the ground nut oil @ 13/- per kilogram, which is below the market value of Rs.17/- per k.g. There were also some directions with regard to transport. As against those orders, the plaintiffs filed W.P.No.9096 of 1986 and a learned single judge of this court in the order dated 18-10-1986 allowed the writ petition and an appeal was preferred and it was dismissed on 11-02-1987. As against the said judgment, the matter was carried to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court dismissed the Civil Appeal holding that the imposition of the restrictions is not valid. The supply of ground nut oil @ 13/- per kg as directed by the first defendant is therefore not legal and consequently the plaintiffs filed the suits for recovery of the differential value @ 17/- per k.g. and with interest @ 12% p.a. from 18-10-1986. The suit O.S.No.787 of 1993 was filed for recovery of Rs.30,813- 45 paise; O.S.1178 of 1990 was filed for recovery of Rs.1,01,074-47 paise and O.S.No.1179 of 1990 was filed for recovery of Rs.81,256-26 paise. The defendants mainly contested the suit on the ground that it is barred by time; the claim that the market value of the ground nut oil @ 17/- per k.g. is not correct; there was no compulsion against the plaintiffs to supply the same @ 13/- per k.g and it was the wholesale market price; that the plaintiffs did not suffer any loss and the claim is excessive; there is no liability to pay the interest. All the suits were clubbed together and evidence was recorded. On behalf of the plaintiffs PWs.1 to 3 were examined and marked Exs.A- 1 to A-60. On behalf of the defendants Dws.1 to 3 were examined and marked Exs.B-1 to B-5 and Ex.X-1 was also marked. After considering the evidence on record, the learned Senior Civil Judge decreed the suit of the plaintiff in O.S.No.787 of 1993 for a sum of Rs.20,611/- with interest @ 12% p.a. from 20-08-1990 till date of decree and thereafter @ 6% till date of realisation. The suit O.S.No.1178 of 1990 was partly decreed for a sum of Rs.67,608-35 paise with the same rate of interest as above and the suit O.S.No.1179 of 1990 was partly decreed for a sum of Rs.54,443-08 paise with the same rate of interest as above. CCCA 35 of 2001 is filed aggrieved by the judgment in O.S.No.1178 of 1990; Tr.CCCA No.11 of 2002 is filed against the judgment in O.S.No.787 of 1993 and Tr.CCCA No.12 of 2002 is filed against the judgment in O.S.No.1179 of 1990. The points that arise for consideration are:- 1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the market rate of Rs.17/- per k.g for the ground nut oil supplied by them? 2. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the interest claimed? 3. Whether the suit is barred by time? POINTS:- The learned counsel for the appellant, at the outset, contends that the claim of the respondents that they were forced to supply the oil @ 13/- per k.g is against the market value of the oil prevailing on that date is not correct and in fact in the writ petition decided by the learned single judge, it was found that supply was voluntary and therefore the present claim of the respondents/plaintiffs cannot be accepted. However, it is an admitted fact in the writ appeal, it has been specifically held that the plaintiffs will be entitled to pursue their remedies as may be available to them to claim the loss if any suffered by them on account of the compliance of the directions issued by the State Government. Therefore, the observations of the learned single judge which are said to contain in Ex.A-10 cannot be taken into consideration in view of the fact that the writ appeal has given a specific right for the plaintiffs to pursue their remedies. Further more, there is nothing on record to show that the Supreme Court has held to the contrary in favour of the appellant. Evidently, sofar as the limitation is concerned, the writ petition was filed by the petitioners and as against that order, the writ appeal was preferred and the matter was also taken to the Supreme Court. The memo which was challenged by the plaintiffs is Ex.A-4 dated 21-06- 1985. From the facts of the case the judgment of the learned single judge quashing Ex.A-4 is dated 18-10-1986 and as against that the writ appeals were dismissed on 11-02-1987 and finally it was decided by the Supreme Court. The entire initiation of the levy or directions under Ex.A-4 by the Government were found to be not valid and the right of the plaintiffs to pursue the remedy for recovery of the higher value was reserved by the judgment of the High Court in the Writ Appeals. Unless and until Ex.A-4 memo was found to be not enforceable, the plaintiffs would not get any right to claim the differential amount and the lower court relying on the decision reported in Mahaveer Kishore Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (AIR 1990 SC 313) rightly held that starting point of limitation is from 19- 01-1989. Therefore, the cause of action has arisen after the culmination of the proceedings before the Supreme Court and the judgment of the Supreme Court dated 19-01-1989 has to be taken as the starting point of limitation even if the principle of Section 14 of the Limitation Act for exclusion of the time is not applied. The learned counsel for the appellant strongly contends that there is no proof about the market value of the ground nut oil being Rs.17/- by 1986 and the evidence adduced on behalf of the plaintiffs is inconsistent and in view of the above circumstances fixing of the market rate of ground nut oil @ 17/- per k.g. is incorrect. He relies upon the judgment of the lower court in para.39 wherein the lower court has referred to different claims of the market rate in the suits differently. The lower court relied upon the evidence of PW.3 who is said to be an oil miller and produced account books showing the market rate prevailing during that period and according to him it varies from Rs.17/- and Rs.21/-. The lower court took note of the fact that the evidence of PW.3 shows that in fact the market rate is more than Rs.17/- as claimed by the plaintiffs. Evidently, when the defendants are disputing the rate, some evidence should have been adduced to prove the same. The defendants could not produce any document to show as to what was the prevailing market rate in the whole sale market by the date the memo Ex.A-4 was issued. Therefore, the lower court has no other option to evaluate the evidence of PWs.1 to 3 and supported by some documents produced by PW.3. The defendants could not show that by the date of Ex.A-4 and when the plaintiffs made supplies the rate was only Rs.13/- per k.g. The lower court having assessed the evidence came to a right conclusion and there is no material to come to a different conclusion and the defendants have not adduced any evidence on that aspect. Therefore, in view of the above circumstances the rate of Rs.17/- per k.g fixed by the lower court cannot be said to be excessive or based on no evidence. The learned counsel for the appellant strongly contends that there was no agreement to pay the interest and at any rate the interest @ 12% claimed by the plaintiffs and granted by the lower court is not proper. The lower court negatived the claim of the plaintiffs for interest from 1986 but considered the claim of the plaintiffs for interest from the date of demand after the issuance of Section 80 CPC notice. It is as rightly found by the lower court there is no contract or agreement to pay the interest. The cause of action has ultimately arise into the plaintiffs only after the disposal of the case in the Supreme Court. They are not deprived of the value of the goods which they have supplied and the amount @ 13/- was paid. Therefore, in view of the above circumstances, the lower court has rightly taken a view that the interest shall be payable from 20-08-1990 which is the date of notice. The suits were filed in December-1990. Under Section 34 CPC the court has got power to grant interest from the date of suit. In this case the interest was granted from the date of demand. I do not think that there is any error committed by the lower court. However, the lower court has granted interest @ 12% till date of decree from 20-08-1990 and subsequently thereafter @ 6%, which does not appear to be proper and ends of justice would meet if interest @ 6% is granted from the date of suit till date of realisation on the principal of amount of Rs.20,611/- in O.S.No.787 of 1993; on the principal amount of Rs.67,608-35 paise in O.S.No.1178 of 1990 and on the principal amount of Rs.54,443-08 paise in O.S.No.1179 of 1990. Accordingly, the points are answered. Therefore, the appeals are allowed in part while confirming the decree of the lower court granting the value of the ground nut oil @ 17/- per k.g, the plaintiffs are entitled for interest @ 6% from 20- 08-1990 till date of realisation on the principal amount of Rs.20,611/- in O.S.No.787 of 1993; on the principal amount of Rs.67,608-35 paise in O.S.No.1178 of 1990 and on the principal amount of Rs.54,443-08 paise in O.S.No.1179 of 1990. Each party is to bear their own costs. _______________________ N.R.L.NAGESWARA RAO,J 11-03-2011 TSNR