The court ruled that limitation for civil recovery suits cannot be extended by prior administrative recovery actions, and the absence of proper authorization for a plaintiff represents a fatal defect in contractual litigation.

JUDGMENT :

Mukesh Rajpurohit, J.

1. This civil first appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has been preferred by the appellants-plaintiffs against the Judgment and Decree dated 23.07.1997 passed by the Additional District Judge, Phalodi in Civil Regular Suit No.68/1993 titled as “State of Rajasthan & Anr. vs. M/s Rama Road Career”, whereby civil suit for recovery of Rs. 2,05,882/- filed by the appellants-plaintiffs was dismissed.

2. The facts which are germane for the present first appeal, in nutshell, are that appellants-plaintiffs instituted a civil suit for recovery of Rs. 2,05,882/- against the respondent-defendant before the court of Additional District Judge, Phalodi (hereinafter referred to as “trial court”), which was registered as Civil Original Suit No. 68/1993 (State of Rajasthan & Anr. vs. M/s Rama Road Career). It was pleaded in the suit that as per Contract No. 6 of the year 1983–84, plaintiffs allotted work of transporting 1250 M.T. cement from Nimbahera to Ramdevra to defendant-firm. Under the contract, defendant-firm received 5100 bags of cement, however, due to defendant’s act of storing cement bags at Ahinsa Nagar, Chittorgarh Chungi Naka without authorization, District Supply Officer, Chittorgarh seized cement on 02.07.1983. The defendant neither informed plaintiff about seizure nor obtained prior permission of plaintiffs for storage. Despite repeated requests by the plaintiffs, defendant failed to complete the transportation work. By letter dated 20.11.1983, defendant was informed that if the work was not completed, recovery would be made at double rates. Since the cement was not transported as per contract, Executive Engineer, 20^th Division, Phalodi, by letter dated 31.10.1984, requested the District Collector, Jaisalmer to recover Rs.2,05,882/- from defendant-firm. But no action was taken despite reminders, including a final reminder dated 29.04.1990. Therefore, present suit was filed by plaintiffs seeking a decree of Rs.2,05,882/- along with interest against defendant-firm.

3. Respondent-defendant filed written statement denying averments made in the suit and pleaded that contract for cement transportation was under the orders of the Rajasthan Canal Project, 20^th Division and that 5100 bags of cement were dispatched to Ramdevra, required to reach by 30.06.1983. When consignment reached Chittorgarh, route ahead was found blocked. Due to compulsion, cement was stored in a rented godown at Ahinsa Nagar, Chittorgarh. District Supply Officer, Chittorgarh, illegally seized cement bags on 02.07.1983. Despite efforts, no cooperation was given by the Executive Engineer, 20^th Division, Rajasthan Canal Project to get the goods released. Because of the seizure, timely delivery became impossible. On 10.05.1984, appellate authority ordered release of the cement but no departmental representative came for inspection, resulting in deterioration of cement quality. It was further contended that delay occurred due to negligence of the State Government and departmental authorities. In the additional pleas, it was pleaded that suit was barred by limitation, that Plaintiff No. 2 had no authority to file the suit and that no person was duly authorized by the State Government to institute the suit. The defendant detailed expenses and losses, stating that value of cement was Rs.1,70,850/-, freight charges Rs.1,41,192/-, legal and seizure- related expenses Rs.5,000/-, godown rent Rs.7,500/-, security deposit Rs.25,000/- and chowkidar expenses Rs.1,400/-, totaling Rs.1,80,092/-. After adjustment of Rs.1,70,850/- towards cost of cement, defendant claimed ent