The High Court · 2025

Judgment

(Per tlon'ble Sri Justice Vakiti Ramakrish t ReLldt\ 1'his Appeal is filed by the appellant/plaintiil rgainst thc .ludgmcnt atrd Decree dated 25.03.2013 (hereinalttr uili bc rel'ered as 'impugned iudgment') passed in O.S. No. I 1l of l(i06 on the llie of ChiclJudge, Citl' Civil Court, Hyderabac ihcrcinaficr rvill bc ref-erred as 'trial Court'), wherein the suit [l ed hr the appc llanti plaintiff for recovery of mone)' was dismisse,l 2 For the sake of convenience, the parties herein arc relencd as per their status befbre the trial Court i. The brief l'acts of the case as can be seen frorll thc plaint aYrrments ale that on the application filed by thc pLri rtii'f to the def'endant, thc plaintiff was permitted to participate itL .ire auctiotr to purchasc a Plot at HLJDA Heights, Banjara Hills. \:cordingll. the plaintiff r'r,as dcclared eligible and allotted a plot r,lmcasuring 823,5 squarc mcters lbr a sale consideration of Rs.3 l. 78.710,- /rz, (- (c( \ r. l0l l Rs.3,860/- pcr square metcr. In pursuancc ol'conllrmation cunr-

provisional allotment letter, datcd I 1.0i.1996. the plaintiff paid Rs.7,94,6781-, which was acknowledgcd br the dcfcndant. C)ut of the three instalments that werc to bc paid bv the plaintill tor,vards balance sale consideration, thc ptaintiff paid onll tuo instalments but did not pal the third instahncnt as thc hasic arnenitics and inliastructural facilities wcre nol completcd hv the dcf'cndant. 'l-he plot owners of HUDA Heights lbrmcd an association in the name and style of 'HUDA Fleights and [:nclave Plot Owncrs Association' and made repeated requcsts to providc amenitics and facilities but the defendant did not acccdc to the samc. In the meanwhile, the defendant issucd a lettcr to thc plaintifT lbr payment ol third instalment u'ith intercst (1 2{o.,0 per annum or clse the allotment would be cancellcd. Accordingli.. the plaintifl'paid Rs.24,00,000/- on 02.01.2002 rvith intercst Q 2{0,,o pcr annum Subscquently the plaintiff came to know that thc (iovcrnment of' Andhra Pradesh through the Principal Secrctary to Govemmcnt. Municipal Administration and lJrban Dcvelopment Department considcrcd the reqgest for charging simplc interest ,rr, 13.5% on the ) balance instelnrent liom the date oi providing basic urn -'nitics such as clectricitr. r()ads. water and scr.r'erage to the lay-()ut tnd passcd an order daicd 04.09.2001 vidc lcttcr bearing No.i0 +r r8/l,98iMA and dul1, comnrunicaLcd the samc to the del-endant. I u,'as tradc clcar in the orcler that the said scheme is applicablt iirr the plot ovr ncrs who havc not paid full amount and interest ; trd tliat thc: samc is not applicablc to the plot owners who hrrr c paid lull amount and thirt there shall bc no refund. I lowever. l. c del'cndant kcpt the sairl ordcr in dark without informing about rh j sard lcrtcr to thc plaintill'rrnd insisted the plaintiff to pay the thinl instalmcnt r.r ith interest at 24o/o per annum. 'l he plaintilf after LLr rlcrstandins thc atlitudc ol'the def'endant caused a legal notice dattd 11.05.200i to thc def'endarrt. who issued a reply notice dated 16.07 1003 to the plaintitf stating that thc plaintilT is not entitled for anr , uch rctund Subsequcntl-v. Lhe plaintiff made a represeritation on 07 09.2004 lirr lclirnci o1' tlrc crccss amount ol Rs.13.77.846/- col c -'tcd bv thc dcl'endant. horUg1,g1, there was no refund from tl c def-etrdant Ihcrcafter the plaintiff issued another legal rrrrice datcd 0l .09.2005 to thc dcfcndant, hower.er, there rvas no r-'l'ly lrorn thc defendant to the second lesal nottoc. llencc. thc plaintiff- uas constrained to Iilc the suit lor rccovery ol' Its. 19.7j.846/_ rvirh nterest (a.,,12o/o per annum liom 15.07.200j k) l.j.07.l(X)6

1. In rcply to thc plaint averrnents, the dcf.endant lllecl urittcn statement inter-aria contending that rhe scheme in{roduccd b,l. thc govemmcnt is not applicablc to the plot orvners t,,ho had alrcadr paid full amount along with intercst and therc shail bc no rclunri and since the plaintiff had alrcady paid full amounr r.r,irh inrercst. hc is not entitled for any refund. It is further contcndccl thar u hcn thc plaintiff was liable ro pay Rs.26,36,000/_ towards third insralimcnt with interest, the plaintiff could pay only Rs.24.00.000r_ 3ni1 11.,. halance ol'Rs.2,36.000/_ was waived and ad-justcd a_sains( thc i.inal installment. Hence, prayed to dismiss the suit of thc plaintill. -) Aftcr considering rival pleadings. thc triar courr riarncd rhc fbllowing issues cloint ./iom the defendont ? 2 pr0ye WhZdte" the plaintij[ is enritletl lo tlte tlecree. a.t d for?

3. '[o u'har ralieJ?

6. On 02.01.2()13 at the timc o[hearing argumcnts. tlrt trial ('ourt fiarncd the firllo* ing additional issuc Whether thc suit is bancd by Law of Limitation'l

7. During thc coursc of lrizrl. the plaintiff himself ua ' cxatrincd as I'Wi ancl got markcd Exs.Al to A6 on his behatf. -)r behalf of thc clelcndant. onc Naga.il'othi. u'ho is thc ndministrativ: ()fflcer in l:state Managerr,cnt, was cxamincd as DWI and lrxs.Bl to []7 were rnarked. tt. Thc trirl (iourt aftcr considering the oral and C rcunrentary cvidencc adtluccd on behalfofboth sides, dismissed tr': suit ofthe plaintifL

9. Aggriei cd by the aforesaid Judgmcnt and Decrt c of thc trial Court. thc l'laintill'had fited the present Appeal to slt aside the impuened .iudgment and decrcc.

10. I Ieartl lcamed Counset fbr thc Plaintifl and D:ltndanL. ancl perused thc rccord I I . Nou the point lirr determination is Whethcr the impugned Judgment and Decree dated

25.03.20t3 passcd in O.S. No. 341 of 2006 on the lllc of'Chiel'Judge. Ciry Civil Court, Hyderabad is liablc to be set aside?

12. POINT: '['here is no dispute that the plaintiff was allotted l)lot No. 26 in I{UDA Ileights, Banjara I{ills, I{yderabad. lirr Rs.i l.7tt.7l0l- under allotmcnt lettcr datcd 1 1.03.1996 br the del'endant. It is the specific contention of the learned counsel lirr thc plaintiff that despite pcnding demands by the plot owncrs' association lor promised basic amcnities, the defendant demandcd thc final installment with 24%o interest on threat of cancellation On contran'the leamed Counsel for the def'endant submits that thc plaintifl. though a successful bidder for Plot No.26 at IIt.lDA I Ieights defaulted on thc third installment of Rs.8.34.41 I /- aficr pai ing the first tu,o installmcnts on time and as per ternts ol- thc brochurc. annual interest at 24%o was payable on the due amount

13. ['he leamed counsel fbr the plaintiff submits thar on

21.01.2002 undcr thrcat of cancellation of allotment, the plaintili' n paid Rs. 2.+.0().000i- along u'ith interest towards third rn;tallrnent' T'he learncd counscl firr the Ptaintill' fu(her submi:s that the Plaintifi later cliscovercd that the thcn Govcmment c l Andhra Pradosh. bl ordcr dated 0'1.09.2001. had directed thc [)e indanr to chargc the intcrest only at 13.5% p a. instcad of 2J'' p ti and despite thc said order thc def-endant collected the inlcrc:'t rIt the rate ol 24"/o p.a. ()n thc contrary. thc leamed counscl for the delcndant submits that a slurw cause notice datcd 27.06.1998 ri r: issued to the ptaintiff. fbllorvcd by a cancellation notice dated l'072000 rvaming thc lbrtciture ol'the initial deposit and intercst Condition No. 1l ol'thc brochurc. categorically states that intergit at the ratc ol 24o/" pcr allnum was payable on the due anl'lrtnt to the I)cl'endant.

14. The leametl Counscl fbr thc Plaintiff submits thai ry thc datc ol pay ing thc linal instalment. the order dated 04.09.2 .)01 passed bl thc Governrtrcnt ol'Andhra Pradcsh. was subsistinlr. dcspite thc samc. the detcrrCant authoriq highhandedly demandc,l lhe dmount rv ith interest at the rate of 24o/o per annum. On :r 'trtrarr . the lcametl counscl lbr the dclendant submits that the plain.i1T paid the \ third instalment rvith intcrcst i.e.. Rs.24.00.000/- on 02.01.2002 Subsequcntly. (iovcmment vide lcner dated 16.04.2002 tixed simple interest at 13.5oh per annum fiom April 2000 to 02.08.2001. but rciterated that no retund would bc made to plot owners, who paid thc full amount.

15. It is to be sccn that as per thc version of the defendant the policl' decision of'the Govemmcnt in reducing the rate of interest l}om 249o p.a. to 13.5% p.a. under Exs.A5 and ,46 was made applicablc tbr the plot owners who have not paid full amounl and interesr. Howevcr, the plaintiff was askcd to pay the third installment along with interest at the rate of 24V" per annum denyin-u the be neflt under policy decision of the Govemment on the ground that he has already paid the entirc amount. Since thc plaintilf has paid the entire amount to the defendant honestlv. thc plaintifT also stands in the same position with that ol'the remaining plot orvners of the Association. There is no reasonable explanation eithcr in Ex.A5 or Ex.A6 as to whv such a benefit shall not bc applicable to the persons. who have already paid thc entire amount. In thesc circumstances. thc dcf'endant ought to extendcd such bencfit 1o thc plaintifl'atso. I:ven thc trial Court failct o consider the said aspeot rvith rcf-erencc to doclrine of cqualitl rs enshrincd undcr Article l.l of'thc Constitution of'lndia

16. In Shrilekha Vidyarthi (Kumari) v. State of llttar Pradesh,r thc I Ionourable Suprcme Court obscrvcd as u rder "29. lt tun no longar be douhtcd at this poinl tt1 t ne thut lrticlc ll tlf the Oonslitution of Indiu applies ul.so lo ,tt tler'\ ol goventn<'nttrl politr and il the poli<:1' or un.'t uct,r of tlt, gorrerni tnt. ercn in tontra( lu(l lutl(r.\, fhilt to :ttti:;lt !iL lett tl re a,sonthlt rrcs.s, it voukl hc unttttt.;titutittnul. (Scr' i''turttutrr l)ayartut ,\hatty r'. lnlenrutional ,lirporl 'lulhoritt r i lntlirr [(19791 3 ,\;(-(' J89 : (lt)791 3 .S('R l0lJl unl Klt\'ti Lul l,akshnti Rc'&ly v. Stute oJ.lurnruu Ltttd Koshutr [( l9ti0) I .\CC L ( 1980) Ls(? 1J.1,8/ 1. ln Q . A S Sangvan v Llnio t 't/ lndi,t fl980 ,\u1tit.\1 ('-t-t9 l98l S('C rl-&St 3lliJ v,hilc thc ri 'creiitttr to r:hanga the polit.t in ctcrci.sa oJ tha exet:ulita ltottt t hen rttl tramnu'lled b!' lht statule or rulc, v'trs held to be tlt /r. iI ttrrr empho.sis<'tl ali inperalivc ond inplicit in Article '- oJ tha (bnstitution that u changa in policy must ba made ri;rlv and should not give the impres.sion thul il',t'a.s so done at't:it lrily or by an; ult,:rior crilcriu. Thc v,ide sv,eep of Artic'le l l tmd lhr requir(u('nl oJ evc4 Stata uctton quulif ing fitr ils t'alirtr't on tltt.s touchslont' irrespcclive o! rhc .field <{ u:tivity of tht S tle, hos ktng betn .\eltled. Later der:isions ol this (.'ourt havt rL infort'cd the fottndution of thi\ tenet ond it v'o d be sulficient to t 'fer utlt' Io tto rc(t:nl dccisions of thi.s C'oun.lbr thi.s purpose.

17. In Common Cause, A Registered Society (Petr'rl pumps matter) v. tJnionbf tndiar thc Apex Court ohserved ir: under: ')1. 'l'hc Oovernnrcnt tcxlur itr u refhr" \lutt provides ltrga numher oJ hane/it.t lo the Litizens. lt l.'tribuk'.\ wealth in the .fbrm of ollotnant of plot.\. houses, palrol 1n tnps, gtt.\ : (1991) i SCC 2 Ll '(1996) 6 scc s3o rt'.r egtnck.t. trtirrru/ l<,u.tes, (:onlructs, quotas end liccnc.e.s etc. Gor(r,!n:tnt Jistnhutt,t ldry(.\te.\ in y(uiout./bnns. A Xinir", v;nt: t\,th! !..\.(uth.\,.h.\td of thc deparlmcnr concerned clistrihute.s tnt?\. ond lurX(s.\c.\. llL, i.t 11!1,1.1a6! b.v the pcopl<, ttntl t ( t<,r'L ed lo u l,u\ith,n y.hert ht holds a trutr on beiulf of tlp people. He.lut r, tlcul virh thc Jvnpl",., 1,rop")ty ,r, ii*"rit ir", ttuuDtt,t . l lt <.tt tu,t t.t) tutit brtur,h uJ tlt, trurt ,"p,,rirt in hiri, hs .n?,npJtl\ the people.

18. In Ramana Dayaram Shetty v International Airport Authority of India-t. thc Apex Court observcd as under. '20. .\,otr . oht.iolsl1 v,here a corporation i.\ an i::\trunentllir.t or .g(,nc): i,1 Gou"rn-"nt, ; *;rrkf, ;; ;" 'rnrrc erert i.se of il.t pou,er or di.\crelion, hc subject ,o ih"- con.stitututnul or puhli<. lav linitations a:; Coiernment. The'ruLle tnhibitin&, a.rhitrary ru.tittn bv Government ,rhir,h we fun" ,,ri::'itt"o Qh(^.r' mu.\t.tqrplv quallv wht,rc \u..h cttrporatitn i.t oeattng tt,tth tlrc puhlic. tlhether b1, v,av of givi)g job.r or entcring inlo (onlruc!.\ or othent)ise. and it'canno)l ocioit,iirrrit, tu.tl, (nt?r n,lutitat\ltip l.ith dny fer.\t,n it ti*r,, o, d, .irl ,'"lt \ut. hut tl.\ d(tittn mtrt hc in t.,mlornrity tith st,nk, Drin.,iDl" which ructt.r tlk' h.st uf r...tjon urJ it"rrni,". .intt) "rruin, "ra yrirr",r.r'"i -......,.,.,.,_ !,,,) t-yL. yttLt .ll1v s direuly from rhc doarine oJ equltttl| cnlhodieLl in .4rtrlc 11. lt i.s now v,ell_settletl as a re.ytlt of tha dccisi<tn.t qf rhis Court in t:.p. Rol,appa ,. Snr" o7 tlo^it hA!:,!,tu-.!:-/..s( ('J. rte-Jt t SCR :+xj U"r"iiCr'rani v. Llnton oJ tndiu /09-8) L\cc 21gl thar Articlc lJ strikes or arbitrqriness m State oclion anrt "i'""ii ,f lreotncnt. It requires thet State eclion ruust not be arbitrat-v but nust bc basatl ttn son? roliondl untl relerant prin.rri"" ,ii;.t * ru,t-_dtscrininuktr!. il Dtu.\t not hc gttitlctl tu or, ,r, irrelevunl utnsideralion.s. because that ,iorti h" a""iri ,n "ilr:rrr",r,r.r' e.q ue l i l -t.. The p r i n t. i p la o f rc a.s o n t r h l e ne s.s o n d,o t i o n o l i tv-' i"' h i h pt.titosopt,ir"ily ;, ":;;";;;;;'"ii*iri'.1 ,.,:...,.:f::.!lt :' 'r,ctt ,at L'qtktttt| ttr tu,n_urbitnrinL,.\s i.s prrlected by Articte I4 ancl it ntu.sl characteri.se eten, ,\tale ac.tion, vhelher it be under authoriry' cf lat. or in atercisa of exec.uttve p,rr,r,"', ,riiir'r, nnking of lav. 7 he Statc cunnot. ihererttre, orl o,ri,,ror,ir'' ,, enleritv inlo relotiorrJlip. t.onlrut.tual or t,thent,i.\e u ittr'o' 'tni)a " ' (r97.ri J scc aijg ? p.tr\. bul tl\ .l.lion musl confbrm to sotrtL' slonddttl t nornt which i.s rulbnal arul non-dis(:rintinabry. l'his print p t v,ts rec<tgnisetl arul upplied bq' u []tntlt of this Oourt pra:i krl o"':r b|, Rat', C.l . in Enrsian Equipntnt and Clrcmicals I't l Slttlt ol 14 a.st Benqttl tlrcrclfuleurucd( hief Justice pointcd t'L'!h! " tht ,\tute tott (arr.\' on ctacutivc .f ntlion bt t t king u law or virhoul ntaking a lr.lrr+.. l'hc axercisc ttf suth Pt) t\ t.\ utkl Juncrions tn lrade b.v the Stute rs suhictt to l'arr I I f thL' Conslitution lrtk:le l1 speoks of'equaliry' bclbra llL lt\t) und equal prott'<'lion ttf thc lor Equolit'- tt/ oPlrorIu,ttt\' \hould upf\, lo l(ttlcrs of puhli< conta(l.\. The .Sl1le hos th, tghr ttt trade. The State futs there thc duly lo ohsen'e uyr ttit,'. -ltt ordinary indi'idual can choose nol lo deal with unlt pc, s tn- 7 Lrr Ooterttntent (annot (hoose lo erclude perxtns hv dis<'n n tutit'n 'Ihe order o[ blacklisttng hus tht ,:.f[ecr of dcprit'ing tt ,)t ]'tott I)l cqualily tt/ olportunilv in llte lull(r of ltuhlic Lontra(t t irersotl who is ott thc approt,cd list i.s unuhle to tttt('r mlo uiv n ,rgeou: ralutions ',+.ith the (irncrnnpnt becau.sc of th( )t tlcr ol hlucklistin.q .. A citizen has u right to tloin equol lr( tt)!ent tt) enler into a conlra(l v,hich mtu be pntper, net:L.stt rv cnt/ es.senlial trt his lavful colling .... lt is tnte lhal ttLirtier tht' pctilioner nor lhe rt.spottlenl hu.t unt righ! to rtti, t ittltt t. conlracl ltta lhey are enlitled lo cqual lre(tlncnt v'illt rt lt ":; t h oJ.fcr lendar or quololions for lhc Purchasc ttf the gottth . Il rrusl, lherelore follov as a necessary contlto"v Jirtttt thc prtru:iple of equulity enshrinL<l in Article l1 that r'tr rrgh tht Slote it entillad lo refu.sa b enlcr inlo relutionshilt rl tll L'tty t)n( ),cl if ]l do(s .\o, il cannol arhitrorill'chttosa ony pert'tr il likc.; for enlenng inlo such relationship and discrintinatL 'tetvratt persons sintilarly circum.';lance d, bul il musl ar:t in trt tfitrnril'' v,ith .sontt' standard or principla vhich mects tlt' ;est ol n:a,sonablt'nass and rutn-tliscrininot ion antl uny deryt tt re ./ittnt such slanlurd or printiple vrtuld be invulkl unle.v.t ri :an ltt supporletl or justiJied on so rc r( nn(tl uncl non dtsttittinalor: ground. ''

19. In Erusian Equipment and Chemicals Ltd' State of West Bengall the Honourable Supreme Courl obscrr e I as under: . (1975t I SCC 70 -Y]\i \ ( \iis.l & \ Rl\R.l '. l). [indcr.lrticla )98 o/ the Cohstitu.tion the ere ttivc pover lJ the Lnion arul thc State .shall ertend to the carrying on of unv rradc ancl to thc ucquisition. holding and disposal of propcrl) ttttd thc moking of contracts .for dny purposc. Thc State can curn) on erecutite ./unction hy making a loy' or willnul making a lay'. Tha exerci.st' ofsuch powers andfunctions in trade hy the Stute is suhject to Purt lll o./ the (.onstilution. Article l1 speahs ofequalirv before thc law and equal proteclion of thc la.vs. Eqtrulity of opportunit' should appl_v lo matlers of public controcls. The Stute has tht: right n tade. The Slele furs there the duly lo obscfte equulif . .,ln ordirutn irulividual can choose not lo deal v,ith any p?r\on. Thc (itt,arnnattt cannol choose to cxtlude persons b.r' discrininction. Thc ordar of hlacklisting has thc ellect oJ dcprivinl4 a per.ton o/ aqualin of opportuni4, in the mauer of puhlic contracl...l person *,ln i.s on the upltroved list is unable to enler into ulvanktgcttu-s relttion.s v ith the (ioyemmcnl because of the ordar o/ hktckli;ting. .,1 perxtn vho hos been dculing v,ith the Govcrnnrcnt in th? m.,tter of s(tk ond Jturchase of muteriul.s has o lagitimate interest or erpeclotion. l{lrcn the Slole acts b lhe prejudice ofa parson it has to be supportad hy legality.

17. The Governntent i.t o (ioverntnent of la:rvs and not of men. Il is truc lhat neilher lhe pelilioncr nor lhe respondent hu anv right lo enler inlo o codrecl but the| ore enlitled b equol treatment v)ith olhars who offer tender or qru)tetions Jor the purchase of the goods. This privilega aristr hecausL, it is the (iovernmcnt which is troding vith lhe puhlit and the democratic fbrnt of Got'ernment denruntl.s quulitl ond ah:;r:n(e oJ' orh it rarinc ss and discrimination in such tran.soctittns. HohJeld treat.s privilegas as a form of liherty a.s opposcd Io a dury'. Thc uctit,itie.s of thc Government htne a puhlic elentent und. thcrc/ire. tlrcre should be .fairness and eqrutlitv. 7he Slulr aed tx,t cnler into en! contracl with an.yone but if it .loc.t .\o. it nu.tt &t .so.fairlr vitlput discrininalion and vith<tut unfbir procedure. Repulution is e part oJ a pcrrcn's clruraclcr und personalitv. Blucklisting tarni.shes one's repulation.'

20. The rigors of Arriclc 14 ol' the Constitution cannot be interpretcd in a narrow or podantic manncr. Thc principle of equality and rcasonablencss is an essential elcment of equalitv or - .1 r\\ l r ,l.I N l non-arbitrariness. ln view of thc principlc laid down irr thc abovc said decisions. it. can be held that discrimination and er ritrariness rr as shown by Lhe dcf'endant against the plaintifl' thotrl h irc ii as honcst and diligent in making the cntire payment to thc C rlcndant 2l . The lrial court at pagc No. 16 of the impugne d iudemer-rt obscned tha{ the plaintiff ought to have plcaded and , stablished the date olthe liitter to show that the demand rvhich ccnirrcllcC thc plaintiff to pay the cxcess amount $as madc alter thc g,)' emtncnt's ordcrs. Therc is no dispute that thc delendant had knorr l:dge about Exs-A5 and A6 prior to reociving paymcnt ol thirtl Irstellment liom the plaintifL 'l'he defendant also alleged to have i: :idressi:d a leiter to the govemment on 1i.11.2001 i.c.. prior to r,:tL'ipt oi thc third installment amount from thc plaintifT to clarili l-.' datc and ratc of intercst to be charged. There is also no disJ,t te that thc plaintiff has been urging the defendant as well as go\ lmrnertt to relirnd the excess amount received bv the defendarrt lrt such circumstanccs. it is the bounden dutv of the dclendanr I,.r irttirnatc the plaintifl' about subsistence of the orders pass r,.l bl thc go\ crnment under llxs.A5 and A6 to collect sinrpir ,nterest at t .\lis. r & \'R(R.J cccl 16 l0 tl I3.5% pcr annum. Even orhcrw ise. Ex.A6 i.e., letter addrcssed by, the Principal Secretary to Government. MA anil UD Department to thc Vice Chairman, HUDA, datcd 22.12.2001 clearly. discloses that the computation olsimple interest shall bc at 13.5% p.a. When the defendant had clear instructions lrom the government in Ex.A6 with regard to thc computation ol intcrcst at 13.5% pcr annum, there is no explanation on thc part of dclcndant as to what is thc ncccssity lor thc def'endanr to wait lbr lirrthcr dccision o[ the govemmcnt with rcgard to thc rate ol.interest till receipt of letter dated, 16.04.2002. [t draws an advcrse infcrcnce against the defendant that dcspitc having clear instructions from the govemment with regard to reduction olpenal ratc of intcrcst on the defaulters, the delcndanr did not disclosc rhe same to thc plaintilf and rather collected excess amount lrom the plaintiff than thc amount as instructcd br thc govcrnmcnt b1. suppressing Exs.A5 and ,46.

22. In vicw of the above discussion and since the plaintiff compelled to pay his third installmcnt amounr arong with intercst (4 24% per annum to the dcf'endant despitc Government had taken - a policy decision to reduce thc ratc of interest at the rutr of t3.5% p.a. towards third installment by addressing the lt t r.'rs urtdcr irxs.A5 and .{6 to thc defendant. thc plaintift' is entitl-'d ltir the rcfund of the cxcess amount received bv the def-endlln fiont the plaintifl.

23. Norv coming to the limitation aspect, the leamed ( rrunse I lbr thc I'laintiff suhmits that the 'frial Court has crred in lr rldrns that the suit is barrcd by thc limitation whercas it is to be sr;r rt liotrt thc evidcnce that the Suit was filed within limitation as I r. causc ol action lbr liling the suit accrued on 16.07.2003 when tlt,. dc{irrdant authoriry- issucd their reply rejccting the cla nt ol' the appe llant/plaint i1f. On the contrary, the leamcd coutr;cl lbr the riclendant subnrits that the plaintifls right to sue ac(rr.red on the datc of thc first representation dated 14.01.2002. Thc 1 laintil'l did not institutc the suit within three years cither from l4.r) 2002 i.e-. fiom thc date ol' his first representation or altematelr I:-,,rn thc date of thc llrst lcgal noiicc dated 21.05.2003. hence. the :,i it is h..rrred br larv of linritation \

24. -[-he trial Court u hilc answering additional issue that u.as framed for determining the aspect o[' limitation obscrved at Paragraph No.9(d) that the plaintilf had knowledge ol' his cntitlement to the claim in the suit cven by his first representation dated 14.01.2002 that has triggered the cause of action and the right to suc had accrued to the plaintill'cven b1 1.1.01.2002. It ''r,as flrthcr observed in the impugned judgment that there is no provision in the Indian Limitation n ct $ hich la_"-s down a proposition that the right to sue does not accrue till the claim madc in a notice is rejected by a rcply' notice

25. ln this connection. the leamed counscl for the plaintiffrelied upon a decision in Shakti Bhog Food Industries Limited v. Central Bank of India and anothers. wherein the [lonourable Supreme Court while elucidating the distinction between Articlc 58 and Anicle I l3 of the Limitarion Act obscrved that mere exchange of correspondence distinguishcd liom situation where correspondence is carried out to vindicatc right or redrcss grievance by a pa(y. and clear refusal to do so b,',-, the opposite ' (2O2O) I7 Supremc Court C.s.s 260 parl\ conccnred can bc considered as thc slartin-l point of liuritation. It .,r as further observed that in the absenc : tll' r. ord 'llrst' in Article 1 I l. it would cover cases falling under iectiorr 22 ol the I.imitation Act, including continuing breaches o' orts. Ihe distinction hclrvcen Articl(r 58 and Article I ll is that a: ifre rrsl)l to sue ma\ accnlc l() a suitor in a given case at diflercnt poi rts ol- tirnc and. thus. r.r,here as in tcrms ol Article 58 the period ol limitation rvould bc rcckoncd liom the date on which thc cau:ir of action arose llrst in Lenls of Article I l3 thc period of limitati rrr would bc dittcrr:ntl1 c()nrputcd depcnding upon the last day u'h,rr the cause ol'action arose. ln thc above said decision the suit r'rs fiietl lbr rccovcr\ ol ercess amount charged by the defendant c,)r Lsequcnt to rcndition of accounts with interest. Iiven in the instl.r t case. the plaintill' filcd thc suit fbr recovery of cxcess amount cha br thc -sed tlcl'e ndant lirr recovery ol' third installment amount rlons w ith rntcrcsl So I'ar as thc limitation aspect is concerned in thc instant casc. cven though thc cxchange of correspondcnce b-'tlvcen the plaintill' and dclendant had commenced on 20.(5..1002. the det-endant had issued reply to the plaintiff on 16.07.2(X.i rejccting -Y] \ t thc claim of thc plainrifl l lencc. thc limitation ol threc rears bcgins from I 6.07.2003.

26. The plaintilf filed rhe present suit on 12.07.2006 i.e.. rvithin l.hree years from 16.07.2003. ln this regard, it is appropriatc to havc a glance at the paragraph pertaining to limitation in the plaint. wherein it was disclosed that sincc the def'endant issued rcpl1. notice datcd 16.07.2003 informing the plainriff thar he is nor cntitlcd for any amount, the suit is within limitation. lt is to bc seen that correspondence between the plaintiff and delendant had becn continuing lrom 14.01.2002. Even as per the version of.the def'endant, the plaintilf addressed a representation to the government vidc lefter dated 10.02.2003 to dircct thc dcf'endant to refund the excess amount paid to the deflendant. since the dci-endant had issued a pre-final allotment lcttcr on 1tt.03.2002 i.r ithout considering the rcquest of the plaintilf for rctund olexccss amounr as pcr the Govemmenr Lr. No.30408/l l/9g, dated 22.12.2001. .lhe del'endant further stated that the plaintiff has also approached thc Honourablc Chief Minister on 0g.06.2002 rcquesting ro reconsidcr r\ --\ his rcqucst filr refund ofcxcess amount. Irvcn as per thc version of def'endant and as e r ident liom trx.B7. the plaintiff along r ith othcr plot owners in thc namc ol' HLJDA Heights and F'rtt lave l)lot Or.vncrs \tr'cllarc.\ssociation hed tlle,l W.P.No.ll7ltr, l9 )7 against the dclcndant challcnging the cancellation ol'allotment I plots and incompletc infiastructural works vls-aa'rs Lrv] of intercst/cancc llat jons ordcrs issued and the said writ 1'ttition uas u ithdrarvn on 14.0I .2007. ]-hus. the above admiss t'ns ol' the dcf'endant rrtrnifcstlr clcar that thc plaintifl has bcen r rrsuillg all the remedics available to him diligently from time to tirr':.

27. thc l-imtLrtrtrn Act prevcnts the revival o1'clairr , that havc been dorman[ iitr too long cnsuring that evidence remarni fresh and reliablc. Se t tion 22 ol the Limitation Act says that a l csh pcriod of limitation bcgrns 1o run at overy moment thc bre rch or tort continues. Ihere is no single instancc to say that the p irintill was not diligent tn pursuing his gricvance to say that lari ol lirnitation cannot be crtendcd in lhvour ol the ptaintiff. Ev:rr olhenvise Scction 1,1 r,f lhe l.imitation Act deals u'ith the cxcltrsion ol'time spcnt in pr()sccuting a suit or application in a couri that lacks iurisdiction or is othent ise unablc to entertain it. It cssentiallv -\r ( r\(s.J & \ R(k.l allo\\ s a part_\ t() deduct the time spent in a previous. r.r.ronglv tilcd lcgal proceeding fiom the overall limitation pcriod lor a subscqucnt. corrccll,v- lllcd suit or application. On reading Section I 4 of thc I-imitation Act, it makes it clear that the legislature has cnacted the said secl-ion to exempt a certain period covcred bv a hotru-./icle litigious acriviry'. In view of the intention of the lcgislature rve are of the firm opinion that the equitl. undcrlying under Section 14 should be applied to its fullcsl cxtenr and timc takcn diligently pursuing a remedy, in a dilfcrent court. should bc cxcludcd. Thus, the trial Court erred in holding that the suit o[ the plaintiff is barred b1, limitation.

18. On considering the above aspects and also keeping in vierr ol' the principle laid down in the above said decision, ir can be salcll' hcld that the suit of the plaintiff is within rhc Iimitarion.

9. 7 [n view of the above facts and circumstances. this Court is ol'the considcred view that plaintiff could estabtish that the lrial Court crrcd in dismissing the suit of the plaintiff and thercby thc impugned judgmcnt and decree is liable to be set asidc

30. Accordingh. this Appcal is allorvcd by sctting :rsidc thc .lu<Jgment and Decroc dated 2-5.03.2013 passed in O.S. No. -l4l ol 2006 on the flle o1' (lhicl' .ludgc. Cit-v Civil Court- Jlderabad. Thereby. thc suit ot'thc plaintifl- in O.S. No. 341 ol'200(' s decreed bv dirccting thc dclcndant to relund an amount of Rs.1 i-73-8r0/- (which includes principal amount of Rs. 13,77.816/- and Rs.4.96,024i- toriards intcrcst at thc rate ol- 12o/o per an lunl li'om 1,5.07.2003 to l-r.07.1()()6) to the plaintiff. howevcr. r'ih intcrest at the rate of'6',i, pcr annum liom thc date ol fiting of t rc suit till realization ol'thc arrount. ln the circumstances, thcre srall be ntl order as to costs. As a seque[. pcnding misccllaneous application;. if an1', in the appeal. shall stand closcd //TRUE COPYII SiD/- A.V.S.PRASAD C,EPUTY REGISTRAR n 5EC{TION OFFICER one Fair copy tolhe Hon'bre sri Justice Abhinand r,irrrirar shaviri (For His Lordship's kind perusal) One Fair Copy to the Hon,bte g,ij,?"l'g" Vakiti Ramar<rishna Reddy (For His Lordship,s kind perusal) To, 'I . The Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (with recorris if any) 2. 11 LR Copies I[:,,::i,""r_a;:retary, Union of tndia, Ministry of Law, .ustice and Company 7 (

4. The Secretary, Telangana High Court Advo-cate's Association Library, High Court for the State of ielangana, High Court Buildings at Hyderabad'

5. One CC to Sri D. Jagadeshwar Rao, Advocate [OPUC] 6. One CC to Sri V. Narasimha Goud (SC for HMDA) [OPUC] 7. Two CD Copies VH/PSL *) ./ HIGH COURT DATED: 1210912025 I f' t-,t :i.\ :;\. r:.'\ ,, ii l'.' :' ,/ ?fl25 , :t ,,,- - a.' JUDGMENT+DECREE CCCA.No.76 of 2013 c i_) ',t ALLOWING CCCA WITHOUT COSTS IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF SEPTEIMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE ABHINAND KUMAR SHAVILI AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VAKITI RAMAKRISHNA REDDY CITY CIVIL COURT APPEAL NO: 76 OF 2013 Between: M.M. Rehman, S/o.Taher Ali, Aged about 40 years, Occ Business, Rio. H.No 7 -1 -28141 N 1, Ameerpet, Hyderabad. ...APPELLANT/PLAINTIFF AND Hyderabad Urban Development Authority, Rep. by its Vice Chairman, No. '1-8- 323 Paiga Palace Police Lines Begumpet Hyderabad ...RESPONDENT/DEFENDANT Appeal filed under section 96 of CPC against the Judgment and Decree dated 25-03-2013 in OS No. 341 of 2006 on the file of the Court of the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad. This appeal coming on for hearing and upon perusing the grounds of appeal, the Judgment and Decree of the Court below and the material papers in the case and upon hearing the arguments of Sri D. Jagadeshwar Rao, Advocate for the appellant and Sri V. Narasimha Goud, Standing Counsel for HMDA for the Respondent. This Court doth Order and Decree as follows

1. That the Appeal suit be and hereby is allowed by setting aside the Judgment and Decree dated 25.03.20'13 passed in O.S.No. 341 ol 2006 on the file of Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad; 2 That the suit of the plaintiff in o.s.No. 341 of 2006 is c e creed by directing the defendant to refund and amount of Rs. 1 8,73,8701 (vrr,ich includes principal amount of Rs. 13,77,846/- and Rs. 4,g6,0241 toward:i interest at the rate of 12o/o per annum from 15 07.2003 to 13 07.2006) to the lrraintiff, however, with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from'the date ( f filing of the suit till realization of the amount; 3 That there shall be no order as to costs in this appeal SD/- A.V.S.PRASAD ]i=PUTY REGISTRAR I i I //TRUE COPY// t S CTION OFFICER E I To,

1. The Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad.(with recoros, if any) 2. Two CD Copies VH/PSI, s HIGH COURT DATED: 1210912025 DECREE CGCA.No.76 ot 2013 ALLOWING CCCA WITHOUT COSTS