JUDGMENT:

This appeal is filed by the plaintiff against the decree and judgment dated 04.04.2017 in O.S.No.279 of 2013 (old) O.S.No.299 of 2010) on the file of the Court of X Additional District and Sessions Judge, Visakhapatnam at Anakapalle for recovery of sum of Rs.9,81,712-84 ps. with subsequent interest and costs of the suit.

2. The case of the plaintiff is briefly as follows:

The plaintiff is a registered Co-operative Society registered under the Co operative Societies Act and S.L. Satyanarayana is its Managing Director. The plaintiff submits that the defendant is an employee under the plaintiff society, and that the defendant previously worked in the purchase section of the plaintiff society, during that period the defendant used to take advances for purchase of stores material and failed to account for the same, and that a huge amount of Rs.9,81,712-84ps. was found due from the defendant to the plaintiff society, and that the defendant failed to account for the advances taken by him, in spite of repeated demands by the plaintiff, and as such, the defendant is liable to repay the same amount with interest, and that the defendant is regularly receiving the net payable salary after adjusting various amounts due from him, including the amount due towards store advances referred to above. While the matter stood thus, the defendant got issued a registered lawyer's notice dt.28-8-2010 with false and untenable allegations, for which the plaintiff got issued a reply dt.13-9-2010 claiming the suit amount.

3. The plaintiff further submits that a notice was also issued on 02.11.2011 directing the defendant to produce all the relevant bills etc., and that the defendant received the said notice, but failed to comply with the same. Hence, the plaintiff filed the above suit for recovery of suit amount from the defendant with costs.

4. The contention of the defendant in the written statement is briefly as follows:

The defendant denied all the material averments made in the plaint and interalia contended that he was aggrieved by the false reply of the plaintiff and approaching the Joint Commissioner of Labour, Viskahapatnam, and that plaintiff suppressed all the facts and got issued notice dt.02-11-2011 alleging that defendant did not account for the advances received for purchase of stores. The defendant further contended that the store materials for which advances were drawn, against the approved purchase indent, were received to general stores and utilized by the respective departments and all the relevant details were entered in the Inspection cum Receipt Vouchers and issue slips and they were in safe custody of general stores, purchase and account sections, and that plaintiff did not care to pay salary from June 2007 till retirement on 31-12-2010 and a huge amount of Rs.3,70,000/- were due by 28-08-2010. The suit is filed without any basis to stall the proceedings before the Labour Officers. The account copy submitted by the plaintiff is created and not binding on the defendant. In fact the defendant was given promotion and posted to as store keeper of general stores also. There is no cause of action against the defendant and the suit is not maintainable under law, and the suit is barred by time. Hence, the defendant prays the Court to dismiss the suit with costs. 5. Basing on the pleadings, the trial Court framed the following issues:

1. Whether the suit is barred by time?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the suit amount as prayed for?

3. To what relief?

6. During the course of trial, the plaintiff society examined PWs.1 to 3 and got marked Exs.A.1 to A.88. On behalf of defendant, D.Ws.1 & 2 are examined and Exs.B.1 and B2 are marked.

7. After hearing both parties, the trial Court dismissed the suit awarding exemplary costs of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) payable to the defendant by the plaintiff under Section 35 A CPC.

8. Aggrieved by the same, the plaintiff preferred the present appeal on the following main grounds.

i) Th