The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the Indian Limitation Act within the territorial jurisdiction of Pondicherry.

1. The present Second Appeal on hand is preferred against the judgment and decree passed by the Additional Sub Judge, Pondicherry in A.S.No.131 of 1996, partly confirming the judgment and decree dated 23.12.1993 passed in O.S.No.558 of 1992 on the file of the I Additional District Munsif, Pondicherry.

2. The parties are referred as per the ranking in the Trial Court.

3. The plaintiff is the owner of the Cargo Boat bearing No.PY-245, which had been engaged by the Pondicherry Port Department in connection with the transportation of rice from M.V. Gachav on 01.11.1988. At the time of loading, the wire of the crane operated by the 1st defendant's Department snapped off accidentally, as a result of which, 30 bags of rice fell down on the plaintiff's Boat and caused extensive damages. The plaintiff has to spent nearly a sum of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand only) to remake the Boat fit and the Boat was out of use for about three months. Thus, the plaintiff suffered a loss of damages to the tune of Rs.30,000/-(Rupees Thirty Thousand only). In total, the plaintiff has suffered the damages for an extent of Rs.40,000/-(Rupees Forty Thousand only).

4. It was contended that the accident occurred due to the negligence on the part of the 1st and 2nd defendants and due to the improper maintenance of the said crane. After making several requests to the concerned department for making goods the loss, the plaintiff finally issued a lawyer's notice, which was received by the defendant and they have sent reply with false contentions.

5. The written statements filed by the defendants 1 & 2 states that there is no cause of action as against the defendants 1 & 2. No notice as contemplated under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure had been issued as mandated under law. It was contended that the suit itself was barred by limitation and there is no privity of contract between the plaintiff and the defendants 1 & 2. The defendants 1 & 2 had been leasing out the cranes and other equipments on hire basis for loading and unloading at Pondicherry. In the same way, the cranes had been hired from Sree Ship Chandiliers, owned by M.V.Gachav as per the Indian Ports (Pondicherry Rules 1972). Thus, the defendants 1 & 2 are not liable to pay any damages caused to the Boat by the accident, snapping of the wires of the cranes. As per Rule 11 (1) of the lease and Sub Clause 5 of the said Rule states that the Port authority shall not be responsible for the hirer for any loss or injury to life or property arising directly or indirectly from the use of the cranes during the period of hire. Further, the plaintiff cannot claim that he has lost his business for a period of three months since subsequent to the alleged accident, there was no steamer activity at Pondicherry. The other contentions raised by the plaintiff had been rebutted in the written statement filed by the defendants 1 & 2.

6. The Trial Court formulated the following issues:

1. Whether the suit is barred by limitation or not?

2. Whether the suit is bad for want of notice under Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code?

3. Whether the plaintiff has suffered damage and if so, to what is the quantum?

4. To what relief the parties are entitled to?

7. The Trial Court in respect of the limitation made a finding that the plaintiff has filed the present lis for recovery of damages due to the alleged incident that had been taken on 01.11.1988. The claim of the plaintiff for recovery of money towards damages suffered by him was filed only during the year 1992. However, the Trial Court arrived a conclusion that such a claim is one covered under Article 2262 of the French Civil Code and therefore, it is well within the period of limitation. Accordingly, the issue of limitation was decided in favour of the plaintiff.

8. In respect of the notice to be issued under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the Trial Court concluded that the issuance of the notice under Ex.A4 was admitted by D.W.1 himself. Thus, after i