JUDGMENT - D.K. DESHMUKH, J.:---Both the suits are filed by the same plaintiffs, defendants are also common, the question that arises for decision is also the same. Therefore, both the suits can be conveniently disposed of by a common order.

2.In both the suits, issue of limitation has been framed i.e. Issue No. 7 which reads as under :-

"Whether the suit filed by the plaintiffs is within limitation?"

Both the parties have agreed to try this issue as preliminary issue. The learned Counsel for the defendants made a statement that he accepts for the purpose of decision of this issue, averments in paragraph 16 of the plaint in both the suits. Both the suits have been filed by the plaintiffs for a decree of damages against the defendant No. 1. According to the plaintiffs, tenders were invited by the defendants for some work to be carried out. The plaintiffs submitted the tender. According to the plaintiffs, tender of the plaintiffs was accepted. However, the work was not commenced. According to the plaintiffs, as a result of acceptance of the tender, a binding contract between the parties has come into existence. According to the plaintiffs, the defendants have committed breach of that contract and therefore, these suits have been filed for damages suffered by the plaintiffs for the breach of the contract committed by the defendants. The averments in paragraph 16 of these suits are relevant for deciding the issue of limitation. Paragraph 16 of Suit No. 1313 of 1981 reads as under :-

"16. That the defendants created their liability by issue of letters dated 19th July 1978 and 14th September 1978, which are the root cause for the cause of action of the subject matter of the present suit. The plaintiffs are filing the suit for the damages and or compensation or loss of profit within three years from the date when the cause of action arose. The plaintiffs' suit is therefore not barred by the law of limitation."

Paragraph 16 of Suit No. 1315 of 1981 reads as under :-

"16. That the defendants created their liability by issue of letters dated 19th July 1978 and 14th September 1978, which are the root cause for the cause of action of the subject matter of the present suit. The plaintiffs are filing the suit for the damages and or compensation or loss of profits within three years from the date when the cause of action arose. The plaintiffs' suit is therefore not barred by the laws of limitation."

3.Both the suits have been filed on the same day in this Court i.e. 10th July 1981. Perusal of paragraph 16 of both the suits quoted above shows that according to the plaintiffs themselves, the cause of action for filing of these suits arose in the month of July 1978. The suits have been filed in July 1981. The learned Counsel for the defendants relies on the provision of section 173 of Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, 1976. He submits that the limitation that is provided by this section for filing of the suit claiming damages against the authority constituted under the Act is six months from the date of accrual of the cause of action. In support of this submission, he relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of (Trustees of Port of Bombay v. The Premier Automobiles Ltd. and another)1, reported in A.I.R. 1974 S.C. 923.

4.The learned Counsel appearing for the plaintiffs submits that the period of six months mentioned in section 173 is a period for issuing notice of two months. In the submission of the learned Counsel. Section 173 does not lay down any period of limitation for institution of a suit. In the submission of the learned Counsel, a suit cannot be instituted against the authority under the Act without giving that authority a notice of two months and that notice has to be issued within a period of six months from the date of the accrual of the cause of action.

5.Now, if in the light of these rival submissions section 173 is perused, to my mind, it is clear that once section 173 lays down two requirements for valid instit

Click Here to Read the rest of this document