Case: B.K.S. Marulasiddaiah &amp; Company Vs. Madras Pakku Mandy

3. Briefly stated, the admitted facts in the present appeal are: the plaintiff/respondent herein and the defendant/appellant herein are traders dealing in Arecanuts. The respondents had purchased 40 bags of Arecanuts from the appellants for a given amount of money, however it was alleged that the appellants had failed to pay for the said transaction, dated 13.09.1991. Therefore, the respondent herein had filed Original Suit No. 117 of 1993, before the Principal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Shimoga, for recovery of the given amount along with interest. It is to be noticed that before filing the said suit on 06.09.1993, the prior sanction, as required under Section 84(4) of the Karnataka Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1966 (for short, the APMC Act) had not been obtained by the respondents. It is also an admitted fact that such a sanction was obtained during the pendency of the said suit on 22.07.2002, that is, after a period of about 11 years from the date of cause of action.  4. The learned Trial Court, taking into consideration the relevant provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963, took the date of sanction as the relevant date for the purpose of ascertaining whether the said suit was barred by limitation. It was observed that, taking the date of sanction as the date on which the suit was duly instituted, the said suit was not within the prescribed period of limitation, that is, it was not duly instituted within 3 years from the date of cause of action. The learned Trial Court, therefore, had come to the conclusion that the suit filed by the plaintiff is barred by limitation, vide order dated 05.10.2002.  5. Aggrieved by the said order, the plaintiff had approached the High Court by filing RFA No. 97 of 2003. We have already noticed that the High Court has allowed the appeal and has remanded the matter back to the learned Trial Court, by its order dated 16.08.2012.

Court's reasoning:
10. In the instant case, we have already noticed the admitted fact that, at the time of filing the suit for recovery, the plaintiff/respondent herein did not have the mandatory sanction as required under Section 84(4) of the APMC Act11. This Court, on a perusal of the record, would notice that it has been stated in the plaint itself, that the cause of action for the suit had arisen on 13.09.1991 and that the suit was filed on 06.09.1993. However, it is an admitted fact that the sanction was applied for only in the year 2002, and consequently granted on 22.07.2002. In other words, the prior sanction as required under Section 84(4) of the APMC Act was applied for and obtained after a period of about 11 years from the date of cause of action. These dates clearly indicate that at the time of filing of the suit the plaintiff did not even apply for the prior sanction from the Market Committee as contemplated by Section 84(4) of the APMC Act12. Further, we are of the view that the learned Trial Court rightly applied the law under the Act, 1963 and took the date of sanction as the relevant date to determine the question of limitation. As noticed hereinabove, the cause of action arose in the year 1991 and the sanction was obtained only in the year 2002. That is to say, the said suit was delayed by a period of about 11 years and therefore is clearly barred by limitation13. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion, that the learned Trial Court rightly observed that the said suit could not be treated as having been duly instituted within the prescribed time period, as under the Act, 1963. In view of the above, the High Court was not justified in interfering with the orders passed by the learned Trial Court.