Pradeep Kumar, J.- The first appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 14.10.1999 passed by Shri S.P. Singh, Sub-Judge-II, Seraikela in Money Suit No. 2/95/S.R.1/97, by which judgment the learned Sub-Judge dismissed the suit on contest with cost.

2. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the learned Sub-Judge wrongly dismissed the suit giving a finding that the suit is barred by law of limitation and decided issue no. 3 against the plaintiff-appellant. Learned counsel has further submitted that the learned Sub-Judge also committed an error of law in deciding issue no. 4 that the court at Seraikela had no jurisdiction to try the suit and as such the judgment of dismissal is bad in law and only fit to be set aside and the appellant-plaintiff is entitled to get a decree for refund security amount of Rs. 5.75 lakhs with defendant no.1Andhra Oxygen Pvt. Ltd. which was deposited with him as per the agreement entered into between the parties.

3. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents-defendants has submitted that as per the agreement between the parties the machine i.e. Air Compressor Machine was installed in the premises of the plaintiff at Gamharia by the defendant no.1-Company on the condition that he will return the same' in workable condition, but the same is not returned in workable condition. Then, the respondent-defendant will be liable to claim damages for the same and entitled to get the cost of the repair of the machine. Admittedly, the machine was dismantled before arrival of engineer of respondent no.1-defendant no. 1 and subsequently respondent incurred a heavy expenditure in repair of the Air Compressor Machine. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents-defendants further submitted that the suit was obviously time barred and it was filed as an afterthought only to harass the defendant no.2-Asiatic Oxygen Limited due to their personal differences. Learned counsel for the respondents-defendants further submitted that the plaintiff-Bihar Air Products Ltd. filed several criminal and civil cases against defendant no. 2 only to harass the defendant no. 2 and this was also one such suit.

4. After hearing both the parties and going through the record, I find that the plaintiff's case, in his plaint, is that the plaintiff's Company incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at Awatar Building, Bistupur, Jamshedpur. The plaintiff's Company produces Oxygen, D.A Gas etc. used for various Industrial purposes and the plaintiff supplied such gases to its customers and the plaintiff's factory is situated in Industrial Area Phase-V, Gamharia, P.S. Gamharia within the jurisdiction of Seraikella Court. I further find that the defendant nos. 1 and 2 are both companies incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956. The plaintiff's company in a Board of Directors meeting on 16.12.1982, a decision was taken to take one Air Compressor Machine from the defendant no.1's company and an order was placed with defendant no.1 for Air Compressor Machine on hire basis. It was agreed that the plaintiff would deposit a sum of Rs. 5.75 lakhs as security deposit with the defendant no.1, refundable when the said machine would be returned back. It was also agreed that the plaintiff would pay Rs. 20,000/- per month as rent during the period the machine will be used by the appellant-plaintiff. In accordance with the said agreement, the plaintiff deposited Rs. 5.75 lakhs with the respondent no. 1-defendant no. 1 as security deposit and the defendant no.1 delivered the Compressor Machine to the plaintiff's Company in the month of March, 1983 at the plaintiff's premises at Gamharia. The plaintiff has stated that on, 25th August, 1989, the $aid Air Compressor Machine was dismantled by persons deputed by defendant no.2-Company authorized by defendant no. 1 for packing and despatching the machine from the plaintiff's factory. He further stated that the defendant no.