The limitation period for filing suit starts on the date of the event causing damage, not from subsequent legal judgments.

J U D G M E N T

The plaintiffs in O.S.No.95/98 on the file of the Sub Court, Pala, are the appellants in A.S.No.295/2001. Plaintiff in O.S.No.94/98 on the file of the Sub Court, Pala, is the appellant in the connected case, A.S.No.302/2001. Appeals are directed against the common judgment and decree in O.S.Nos.94 & 95 of 2001. Suit was filed claiming damages. The court below found that the plaintiff in O.S.No.94/98 is entitled to an amount of `72,250/- and the plaintiffs 1 & 2 in O.S.No.95/98 are entitled to ` 23,750/- and ` 21,850/- as damages. The court below dismissed both suits finding that suits are barred by limitation. Being aggrieved by the decree and judgment passed in the respective suits, the plaintiffs in both suits preferred the appeals. Parties hereinafter are referred to as the plaintiffs and defendants as arrayed in the suit.

2. Suit was filed alleging that defendants 1 to 5 illegally demolished the buildings belonging to the plaintiffs under the guise of removing encroachments from road puramboke for providing traffic facilities. It is pointed out that the 6th defendant ::2::

Panchayath filed O.S.No.203/1987 before the Sub Court, Kottayam, for damages and the said suit was decreed allowing the 6th defendant Panchayath to recover ` 21,653/- with interest from defendants 1 to 5.

3. Plaintiffs produced Exts.A1 to A17 and examined 7 witnesses as PWs 1 to 7. Exts.B1 & B2 were produced on behalf of the contesting defendants and DW1 & 2 were examined. The trial court, after evaluating the evidence on record and considering all the facts and circumstances, held that the plaintiffs are entitled to damages to the tune of `72,250/- in O.S.No.94/98 and ` 23,750/- and ` 21,850/- in O.S.No.95/98.

4. The incident of demolition and causing damages to the shop rooms complained of was happened on 22.4.1986. The suits were filed on 4.9.1993 ie., after about 7 years. The court below noticed the fact that the period of limitation is three years. According to the plaintiffs, the period of limitation starts from the date on Ext.A2 judgment in W.A.No.459/1989. Writ petition was filed challenging the proposed demolition of the building. Damages was not claimed in the writ petition. The pendency of writ petition is not a bar for seeking the remedies in the civil ::3::

court within the time prescribed by the Limitation Act. The plaintiffs contended that the suit was filed within the prescribed time limit of three years from the date of Ext.A2 judgment. Ext.A2 judgment was pronounced on 10.6.1991. The court below found that the limitation started running from 22.4.1986 which is the date of demolition and alleged causing of damages. In the circumstances, the court below took the view that the time started running from the date of demolition of the building and not from the date of Ext.A2 judgment. The contention of the plaintiff was negatived rightly and the suit was dismissed finding that it is barred by limitation. I do not find any sustainable reasons to interfere with the decree and judgment passed by the court below holding that the suit is barred by limitation.

In the result, the appeal fails and accordingly, dismissed.

No order as to costs. HARUN-UL-RASHID, Judge.

bkn/-