(LNR, J.)

Both the appeals arise out of a judgment and decree, dated 04.06.2011 in O.S.No.387 of 1987 on the file of the learned II Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.

For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as arrayed in the suit.

The defendants are manufacturers of various products, including edible oil. The plaintiff is a trader in edible oils at Hyderabad. Somewhere in the year 1978, an oral agreement was made, under which, the defendants would supply edible oils to the plaintiff and the latter would be entitled for commission of Rs.2/- per tin supplied to him and Re.1/-in case goods are supplied directly to biscuit companies in and around Hyderabad. It is stated that on 30.03.1980, a consignment of 600 tins of edible oil was received by the plaintiff. The defendants however informed the plaintiff that the consignment was to be unloaded at their depot in Hyderabad and that the plaintiff was not entitled to receive it. The response of the plaintiff was not positive. That entailed in not only stoppage of further supplies to him but also filing of C.C.No.256 of 1980 against him.

C.C.No.256 of 1980 ended in acquittal on 10.05.1985. Thereupon, the plaintiff got issued a notice to the defendants requiring them to pay several amounts towards malicious prosecution, loss of profit in the business, damages to the reputation in the business circle and refund of the deposit of Rs.1,10,000/-. The defendants did not accede to the request of the plaintiff. Therefore, the plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of

(a) a sum of Rs.1,10,000/- deposited by him as a stockist;

(b) a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- towards the compensation for the goodwill created by him for marketing of the product of the defendants;

(c) sum of Rs.3,00,000/- towards damages for breach of contract on the part of the defendants or in the alternative for rendition of accounts; and

(d) a sum of Rs.7,00,000/- towards damages for malicious prosecution.

The relevant facts in support of each claim were pleaded in the plaint.

On behalf of the defendants, a written statement was filed. They have raised the plea of limitation. According to them, the cause of action even according to the plaintiff arose in the year 1980 and filing of the suit in the year 1987 is barred by limitation. Regarding the claim of the plaintiff, for refund of the deposit, they stated that the plaintiff is under obligation to pay the cost of 600 tins of oil amounting to Rs.1,72,991/- and even after adjusting the deposit, they are entitled to be paid a sum of Rs.62,991/-. They pleaded that the claim of the plaintiff under the heads of goodwill and damages for breach of contract is false and baseless. As regards the claim for damages for malicious prosecution, their plea was that the acquittal of the plaintiff was on technical grounds and that the trial Court did not even mention that the complaint filed against him is false.

Through its judgment, dated 04.06.2001, the trial Court partly decreed the suit allowing the claim for refund of deposit of Rs.1,10,000/-and rest of the claims were disallowed. While the plaintiff filed C.C.C.A.No.194 of 2001 feeling aggrieved by the denial of other claims, the defendants filed C.C.C.A.No.184 of 2001 assailing the decree passed by the trial Court for refund of Rs.1,10,000/-.

Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that the trial Court was not correct in its view that the suit is barred by limitation on other claims. He contends that the correspondence or other proceedings between the parties were going on almost till the criminal Court rendered its judgment and the suit was filed shortly thereafter. He submits that the allegation made against the plaintiff in the complaint before the police was found to be false and there is any amount of malice on the part of the defendants in prosecuting the plaintiff for false claims. He submits that the trial Court ought to have recorded a finding in favour of the plaintiff, even if th