B. K. SOMASEKHARA, J.

( 1 ) THE judgment and decree of the learned Sub Judge, Vizianagaram (Sri b. Venkateswara Rao) in O. S. No. 15/1980 dated24-3-1982are challenged in this appeal. The author of the suit (plaintiff) and the sufferer of the decision is the appellant. The respondents were the defendants 1 and 2 in the suit. Uncontrovertedly, the fact matrix and the findings recorded may be imprinted in brief:

( 2 ) THE appellant is a Cooperative Society and was a dealer in levy sugar recognised by respondent No. 1. As per the directions of respondent No. 1 the Collectors respondent no. 2 the Food Corporation of India used to release the sugar and the plaintiff used to sell it at the price fixed by the Collector to the consumers at normal rates with the understanding that the difference in the rate should be reimbursed by respondent No. 1. The plaintiff claimed that in pursuance of the same, levy sugar supplied as su h, was sold by investing Rs. 5,00,000/- by borrowing at certain rate of interest and ultimately on the accounts being worked out, the plaintiff had sold the sugar and the difference of rate to be reimbursed was estimated at rs. 27,277. 52. The plaintiff corresponded with respondent No. 1 for settling the accounts by payment as claimed and in spite of the notice issued through an Advocate and the demands made, they did not yield any result and however, defendant No. 1 agreed to pay the amounts after settling the accounts pending with respondent No. 2. Sincenothing transpired thereafter, the plaintiffhad to file the suit for the relief as claimed. The defendants in the written statement denied their liability to pay the amount to the plaintiff, however, defendant No. 1 contended that defendant No. 2 had to settle the accounts of the plaintiff. Both the defendants contended that the suit is not maintainable and it is barred by limitation.

( 3 ) THESE were the issues:1. Whether the 1 st defendant is liable for the suit claim. 2. Whether the suit is bad for misjoinder of parties. 3. Whether the suit for settlement of accounts is not maintainable. 4, Whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest, if so at what rate. 5. Whether the suit is barred by time. 6. Whether the court fee paid is not correct. 7. To what relief the plaintiff is entitled. Additional issue:- Whether the 2nd defendant is liable for the suit claim.

( 4 ) DURING the trial, P. W. 1 was examined for the plaintiff and an official of the defendants was examined as D. W1. Exs. A-1 to A-74 were marked for the plaintiff whereas exs. B-1 to B-4 were marked for the defendants respectively by way of documentary evidence. Having heard both the sides and with the materials before him, the learned Sub Judge held issues 1,2,4 and 6 in favour of the plaintiff and issues 3 and 5 against the plantiff holding that the suit is not maintainable and itis barred by limitation and additional issue in favour of defendant No. 2 and issue No. 7 to the effect that no relief can be granted to the plaintiff and consequently dismissed thesuit with costs of the defendants.

( 5 ) DESPITE the memorandum of appeal raising many contentions both on facts and law covering all the adverse findings against the plaintiff, during the course of arguments, the appeal was confined only in regard to the findings on issues 3 and 5 namely regarding the maintainability of the suit and the bar of limitation. Even on the assessment of the evidence and evaluating thejudgment of the learned Sub Judge, this court finds no reason to interfere with the findings on issues 1,2,4, 6 and the additional issue.

( 6 ) THE learned Sub Judge has found that in regard to the levy sugar released to the plaintiff and sold, the 1 st defendant was due to pay Rs. 27,277. 52 to the plaintiff. The learned Sub Judge has made a thorough probe into such a question based on documentary evidence and oral evidence and the conduct of defendant No. 1 in not challenging the same, which can be made out from para-6 of the judgment. In br

Click Here to Read the rest of this document