The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK R.S.A. No.226 of 2003 (In the matter of an appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908) State of Orissa and others M/s. Jagannath Traders -versus- …. …. Appellants Respondent Appeared in this case:- For Appellants : Mr. Subhashis Pattnaik, Learned Additional Government Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Satyabadi Mantry, Advocate Appeared in this case:- CORAM: JUSTICE A.C. BEHERA JUDGMENT Date of hearing : 16.01.2024 / date of judgment : 29.02.2024 A.C. Behera, J. This 2nd appeal has been preferred against the reversing judgment. 2. The appellants of this 2nd appeal, i.e., State of Orissa and its officers were the defendants before the trial court in the suit vide M.S. No.05 of 1997 and they were the respondents before the 1st appellate court in the first appeal vide M.A. No.02 of 2000. // 2 // 3. The respondent of this 2nd appeal was the sole plaintiff before the trial court in the suit vide M.S. No.05 of 1997 and he was the appellant before the 1st appellate court in the 1st appeal vide M.A. No.02 of 2000. 4. The suit of the plaintiff (respondent in this 2nd appeal) before the trial court vide M.S. No.05 of 1997 was a money suit against the
Legal Reasoning
defendants for realization of sum of Rs.49,449/- with pendente lite and future interest at the rate of 12% per annum along with additional claim at the rate of Rs.500/- per month with interest thereon since October, 1994 till the realization of the same from the defendants. 5. The case of the plaintiff against the defendants as per the averments made in his plaint was that, he (plaintiff) being the sole proprietor of M/s. Jagannath Traders, he was doing the business of grocery items. On 25.11.1988, the plaintiff purchased 100 bags of rice
Legal Reasoning
from Sri Gayatri Traders at Berhampur on payment of Rs.32,700/- through proper bills/receipts and dispatched the same to Nuagaon in the district of Phulbani by a truck bearing Registration number ORL-1232 for unloading of the same at Nuagaon in his business godown. As the plaintiff had some works at Berhampur, for which, he (plaintiff) handed over the way-bills to the driver of that truck. During the course of transportation, the plaintiff paid sales tax at Bhanjanagar through the driver of the truck to the tune of Rs.1308/- as per receipt No.11 dated // 3 // 26.11.1988. On the way, the officers of Regulated Marketing Cooperative Society, Tikabali also collected a sum of Rs.327/- as per receipt No.42 dated 26.11.1988 from the driver of that truck. The loaded truck carrying 100 bags of rice reached at Nuagaon on 26.11.1988. While there was unloading of the rice bags in presence of the driver of the truck, during that time, surprisingly the Assistant Civil Supply Officer, Balliguda(defendant no.3) along with its staffs seized the said truck and 100 bags of rice of the plaintiff and locked to the godown of the plaintiff and also sealed the same. On 18.12.1988, the defendant no.3, i.e., Assistant Civil Supply Officer, Balliguda prepared a seizure list and handed over the seized rice bags in the zima of one Balarama Panigrahi and subsequent thereto submitted a prosecution report under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 against him(plaintiff) alleging contravention of clause-2(b)(g), clause-3(1), clause-6(a), (b) and (d) and also clause-8 of Orissa Rice and Paddy Control Order, 1965. In addition to the above criminal case under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 against the plaintiff an another proceeding under clause-6(a) of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 was also initiated before the District Magistrate-cum-Collector, Kandhamal vide Confiscation Proceeding No.02 of 1989 for confiscation of the seized rice bags. As per the final order of the collector, Kandhamal in Confiscation Proceeding No.02 of 1989, the seized rice bags were sold through public auction by // 4 // fixing upset price thereof as Rs.200/- per quintal. Accordingly, sale proceeds of the seized rice bags, i.e., Rs.19,606/- were kept under the deposit of Government Treasury. 6. The final order of the confiscation proceeding in Confiscation Proceeding No.02 of 1989 was passed by the Collector, Kandhamal for confiscation of seized rice bags subject to the result/decision of the criminal prosecution under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, in 2(c) CC No.6 of 1990 by the Special Court . But, subsequent thereto, the judgment of the criminal proceeding under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 in 2(c) CC No.06 of 1990 was pronounced on dated 30.11.1991 by the Special Court, Phulbani, wherein accused/plaintiff (who was the accused in 2(c)CC No.06 of 1990) was acquitted from the charge/offence under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. 7. After acquittal of the plaintiff from that case vide 2(c) CC No.6 of 1990, the District Civil Supply Officer paid the deposited auctioned money of the rice bags of the plaintiff, i.e., Rs.19,606/- to the plaintiff without challenging the judgment of acquittal passed by the Special Court, Phulbani in 2(c)CC No.06 of 1990 in favour of the plaintiff. It was held/observed by the Special Court, Phulbani in the judgment of 2(c)CC No.06 of 1990 that, the seized rice bags were not the controlled // 5 // commodities, but the same were purchased by the plaintiff through proper bills and taxes for his business purpose. 8. The plaintiff had brought that 100 bags of rice to his godown at Nuagon by spending of Rs.35,435/- in total, i.e., Rs.32,700/- purchased price of the rice bags plus Rs.1308/- for Sales Tax plus Rs.327/- towards tax paid to the officers of Regulated Marketing Cooperative Society, Tikabali plus Rs.1,000/- towards transportation charges, i.e., in total 35,435/-. 9. As the plaintiff was paid only Rs.19,606/- by the defendant no.2 on dated 05.09.1992 out of his total expenditures of Rs.35,435/- for the same, for which, the plaintiff had the dues of Rs.15,829/- on the defendants to get. 10. After the seizure of the rice bags, when the plaintiff, applied for the renewal of his trade license, but, the defendants did not allow him to renew his license on the ground of pendency of the above criminal case against him vide 2(c)CC No.6 of 1990, for which, he (plaintiff) sustained loss of income at the rate of Rs.500/- per month since December, 1991 till 30.09.1994 being debarred from running his business due to non- renewal of his trade license. So in order to compensate his all losses suffered by him(plaintiff) for the above illegal and unauthorized acts and activities of the defendants, he(plaintiff) decided to file a suit against the // 6 // defendants. For which, he(plaintiff) issued statutory notices under Section 80(1) of the C.P.C., 1908 to the defendants and when after receiving the said notices under Section 80(1) of the C.P.C., 1908, the defendants did not pay any heed to the same, then, the plaintiff approached the civil court by filing the suit vide M.S. No.05 of 1997 against the defendants praying for a direction to the defendants to pay a sum of Rs.49,449/- with pendente lite and future interest thereon at Bank rate and to direct the defendants to compensate his all losses at the rate of Rs.500/- per month along with interest thereon since October, 1994 till realization of the same from the defendants along with other reliefs, to which, he (plaintiff) is entitled for. 11. Having been noticed from the trial court in M.S. No.05 of 1997, the defendants contested the suit of the plaintiff by filing their written statement jointly after taking their stands inter alia therein that, they(defendants) are not liable to pay anything to the plaintiff. Their specific plea/case was that, since the Collector, Phulbani passed final order in the confiscation proceeding vide Confiscation Proceeding No.02 of 1989 under Section 6 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 for the sale of the seized rice through public auction by fixing upset price, i.e., Rs.200/- per quintal of the seized rice as per the Government rate with the knowledge of the plaintiff, for which, the plaintiff is not entitled for any more amount than the deposited sale proceeds of the rice, i.e., // 7 // 19,606/-. They(defendants) are not at all liable to pay anything towards the loss of income of the plaintiff for non-renewal of his license, because, his license was not renewed only for the fault and mistake of the plaintiff. That apart, the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable due to lack of cause of action and so also due to non-restoration of his previous suit, which was dismissed for non-compliance of the office order of the court. The suit of the plaintiff is barred by limitation. Because, according to the plaintiff, the cause of action for filing of the suit had arisen on dated 05.09.1992, when Rs.19,606/- was paid to him by the defendants, but the suit has been filed by him (plaintiff) much after three years since 05.09.1992. For which, the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable under law. Therefore, the suit of the plaintiff is liable to be dismissed with cost against the defendants. 12. Basing upon the aforesaid pleadings and matters in controversies between the parties, altogether six numbers of issues were framed by the trial court in the suit vide M.S. No.05 of 1997 and the said issues are:- I S S U E S 1. Whether the suit is maintainable? 2. Whether the suit is barred by time? 3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get the claimed amount along with the interest @ 18%? // 8 // 4. Whether the plaintiff had the valid documents for transporting rice from one place to another? 5. Whether the defendant No.2 had sold the rice as per the price fixed by the Government? 6. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get the relief(s) as claimed for? 13. In order to substantiate the aforesaid reliefs sought for by the plaintiff against the defendants, he (plaintiff) examined him alone as P.W.1 and relied upon series of documents on his behalf vide Exts.1 to 11. 14. On the contrary, in order to defeat/nullify the suit of the plaintiff, the defendants examined two witnesses from their side, i.e., the Marketing Inspector of Orissa Civil Supply Cooperation, Ltd. and Assistant Civil Supply Officer, Balliguda as D.Ws.1 and 2 and they(defendants) exhibited five documents on their behalf vide Exts.A to E. 15. After conclusion of hearing and on perusal of the materials, documents and evidence available in the record, the trial court answered all the issues in the suit vide M.S. No.05 of 1997 against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendants assigning the reasons that, the suit of the // 9 // plaintiff is barred by limitation, because, he(plaintiff) has filed the suit three years after rising of the cause of action since 05.09.1992, for which, the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the suit against the defendants. Therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled for the amount claimed by him in his plaint against the defendants. Basing upon the findings and observations made by the trial court in M.S. No.05 of 1997 in all the issues against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendants, the trial court dismissed the suit vide M.S. No.05 of 1997 of the plaintiff on contest against the defendants without cost as per its judgment and decree dated 23.12.1999 and 07.01.2000 respectively. 16. On being aggrieved with the aforesaid judgment and decree of the dismissal of the suit of the plaintiff vide M.S. No.05 of 1997 passed by the trial court on 23.12.1999 and 07.01.2000 respectively, he (plaintiff) challenged the same by preferring the 1st appeal vide M.A. No.02 of 2000 being the appellant against the defendants by arraying the defendants as respondents. 17. After hearing from both the sides, the 1st appellate court allowed that 1st appeal vide M.A. No.02 of 2000 of the plaintiff against the defendants (respondents) on contest as per its judgment and decree dated 06.12.2001 and 21.12.2001 respectively and set aside the judgment and decree of the dismissal of the suit of the plaintiff vide M.S. No.05 of // 10 // 1997 passed by the trial court and directed the defendants to pay a sum of Rs.49,449/- with pendente lite and future interest at the rate of 12% per annum thereon from the date of filing of the suit till the date of realization of the same with a further direction to the defendants to pay the said amount within a period of three months, failing which, the appellant/plaintiff is at liberty to realize the same assigning the reasons that, as the learned Special Court in its judgment dated 30.11.1991 passed in 2(c)CC No.06 of 1990 held that, the plaintiff is a licensed dealer to carry-on the rice business and other articles and as, he(plaintiff) had purchased the seized rice bags through valid documents, i.e., bills/receipts, for which, the seizure of the rice bags of the plaintiff by the Assistant Civil Supply Officer was not legal. Therefore, the plaintiff has not violated any of the provisions of Orissa Rice Paddy Control Order, 1965. So, after acquittal of the plaintiff from the criminal charge under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 as per judgment vide Ext.1, he (plaintiff) is entitled to compensate his all losses from the defendants. 18. On being aggrieved with the aforesaid judgment and decree dated 06.12.2001 and 21.12.2001 respectively passed by the 1st appellate court in M.A. No.02 of 2000 in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants for realization of the aforesaid amount, i.e., Rs.49,449/- with pendite lite and future interest thereon, they(defendants) challenged the // 11 // same by preferring this 2nd appeal being the appellants against the plaintiff by arraying him (plaintiff) as respondent. 19. This 2nd appeal was admitted on formulation of the following substantial question of law:- (i) Whether the 1st appellate court in its judgment and decree passed in M.A. No.02 of 2000 is justified in reversing the judgment and decree of the trial court passed against the plaintiff in T.S. No.05 of 1997 without discussing the correctness of the dismissal of the suit on the point of limitation and maintainability, which the trial court had arrived after a detailed discussion on the point of law as well as the fact involved in the suit vide M.S. No.05 of 1997? 20. I have already heard from the learned Additional Government Advocate for the appellants(defendants) and the leaned counsel for the respondent(plaintiff). 21. It is the undisputed case of the parties that, at the time of unloading of 100 bags of rice of the plaintiff from the truck bearing Registration number ORL-1232 in his godown at Nuagaon on dated 26.11.1988, the said Truck along with 100 bags of rice of the plaintiff // 12 // were seized by the defendant no.3- Assistant Civil Supply Officer, Balliguda and on the basis of the said seizure, two proceedings were initiated against the plaintiff, i.e., a confiscation proceeding vide Confiscation Proceeding No.02 of 1989 under Section 6 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 before the District Magistrate-cum-Collector, Kankhamal and as well as a criminal case vide 2(c) CC No.06 of 1990 under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 before the Special Court, Phulbani alleging the allegations against him(plaintiff) about the illegal transportation of the said 100 bags of rice by him(plaintiff) violating clauses-2(b)(g), clause-2(b), clause-6(a)(b) and (d) as well as clause-8 of the Orissa Rice and Paddy Control Orders, 1965. 22. The final order in the Confiscation Proceeding No.02 of 1989 under Section 6 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 was passed by the Collector, Kandhamal as per Ext.3 for confiscation of all the seized rice bags of the plaintiff subject to the result of the decision of the criminal case vide 2(c) CC No.06 of 1990, which was pending against the plaintiff before the Special Court, Phulbani under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. 23. Accordingly on the basis of the final order passed in the confiscation proceeding by the Collector, Kandhamal, as per Ext.3, all // 13 // the seized rice bags were sold through public auction by fixing upset price as Rs.200/- per quintal. After selling the rice bags, the sale proceeds thereof, i.e., Rs.19,606/- were deposited in the Government Treasury. But, after acquittal of the plaintiff from the criminal case vide 2(c) CC No.06 of 1990 as per Ext.1, the deposited sale proceeds of the rice bags, i.e., Rs.19,606/- were paid to the plaintiff on 05.09.1992. 24. After receiving the said amount, i.e., 19,906/- from the defendants, the plaintiff claimed more amount from the defendants towards his unpaid expenditures and losses to which, he had suffered for the illegal and unauthorized seizure of his rice bags by the defendants. 25. When, as per the undisputed document vide Ext.3, the Collector, Kandhamal had passed final order in the confiscation proceeding vide Confiscation Proceeding No.02 of 1989 for confiscation of the seized rice bags subject to the disposal of the sale proceeds thereof as per the findings of the judgment in 2(c) CC No.6 of 1990 by the Special Court, and when, in the judgment of the special Court passed in 2(c) CC No.6 of 1990 vide Ext.1, it has been specifically observed by the Special Court in para no.7 of that judgment that, “the seized rice bags were purchased by the accused(plaintiff) through proper bills from Sri Gayatri Traders, Berhampur(wholesaler of rice), for which, the said seized rice bags belong to the accused(plaintiff) and when the bills/receipts filed and // 14 // proved by the plaintiff are going to show that, he(plaintiff) had purchased 100 bags of rice on payment of Rs.32,700/- and he has paid Rs.1308/- towards sales tax and Rs.327/- towards tax to the Regulated Marketing Cooperative Society, Tikabali and he has also incurred expenditures of Rs.1,000/- for unloading of rice bags, then at this juncture, it cannot be at all held that, the plaintiff is not entitled for the differential amount, i.e., Rs.15,829/- after deduction of Rs.19,606/- from Rs.35,435/- along with his other losses suffered by him for the aforesaid illegal and unauthorized seizure of his rice bags by the defendants. 26. On this aspect, the propositions of law has already been clarified by the Hon’ble Courts and the Apex Court in the ratio of the following decisions:- 1999(4) Crimes 115 Orissa : Fakira Subudhi vrs. (i) State of Orissa and another—After acquittal of offence under Essential Commodities Act, the accused is entitled to get return the seized articles and if articles cannot be returned as spoiled or lost in the meantime, State can be directed to pay money value of articles. (ii) AIR 1991 Orissa-197 : State of Orissa vrs. Ramachandra Das—Goods criminal proceeding—Proceedings ending in acquittal—Court passing order to return seized goods to owner—Goods not returned, having alleged to be misappropriated—State liable to reimburse cost of goods—It cannot claim immunity on basis of sovereign act. during seized : Smt. Basava Kom (iii) AIR 1977 S.C.-1749 Dyamogouda Patil vrs. State of Mysore and another— Property lost or destroyed during pendency of trial—Court has power to order payment of value of property. // 15 // 27. During the course of argument, the learned Additional Government Advocate for the State raised a ground about the non- maintainability of the present suit vide M.S. No.05 of 1997 as per Order- 9, Rule-9 of the C.P.C., 1908 due to non-restoration of the earlier suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendants, which was dismissed for non-compliance of the office order of the court. 28. It is very much clear from the provisions of law envisaged in Rule-8 and Rule-9 of Order-9 of the C.P.C. that, “where a suit is wholly or partly dismissed only under Rule-8, in that situation the plaintiff shall be precluded under law for bringing a fresh / new suit in respect of the same cause of action between the parties without restoring the dismissal suit by setting aside the dismissal order of the earlier/previous suit.” 29. Rule-8 of Order-9 of the C.P.C., 1908 applies, only when, the plaintiff does not appear, when the suit is called on for hearing, which means, if the earlier suit will have been dismissed at the stage of hearing as per Rule-8 of Order-9 of the C.P.C. then only the provisions envisaged under Order-9 of Rule-9 of the C.P.C. shall be made applicable for the bar of a second suit. 30. Here in this suit at hand, when the defendants have specifically stated in their written statements that, the previous suit between the // 16 // parties was dismissed without coming to the hearing stage only for non- compliance of the office order, then, Order-9, Rule-9 of the C.P.C.,1908 shall not be a bar for the present suit. For which, the provisions of Order- 9, Rule-9 of the C.P.C. for making the suit at hand not maintainable have become inapplicable. 31. Here, in this suit at hand, the defendants are non-else, but, they (defendants) are the State and its officers. 32. As per the discussions and observations made above, the plaintiff is lawfully entitled for the amounts claimed by him from the State and its officers due to his acquittal from charge/offence under Section 7 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955 in the criminal case vide 2(c) CC No.06 of 1990 as per Ext.1, because it has been held/observed by the Special Court in the judgment of 2(c) CC No.06 of 1990 that, the seized rice bags belong to the plaintiff and he(plaintiff) had lawfully purchased the said rice bags through valid documents/receipts/bills for his business purpose being a duly licensed person for rice business and the defendants were not authorized under law to seize the rice bags of the plaintiff, as he(plaintiff) had not violated any of the provisions of Orissa Rice and Paddy Control Orders, 1965. 33. The duties and obligations of the State in respect of the just claims of its citizens like this suit at hand filed by the plaintiff has already been // 17 // clarified the Hon’ble Courts and Apex Court in the ratio of the following decisions:- (i) AIR 1954 (Bombay) 50 (Vol.41, C.N.8) : Firm Kaluram Sitaram vrs. The Dominion of India—(d) Practice—State and citizen—Technical pleas—When State deals with a citizen, it should not ordinarily rely on technicalities, and if the State is satisfied that, the case of the citizen is a just one, even though legal defences may be open to it, it must act, as an honest person.(para-12) (ii) AIR 1979(S.C.) 1144, (1979) 4 SCC-176 : Madras Port Trust vrs. Hymanshu International by its Proprietor vrs. Venkatadri(dead) by L.Rs.—It is high time that, Government and public authorities adopt the practice of not relying upon technical pleas for the purpose of defeating the legitimate claim of citizens and do what is fair and just to the citizens. (iii) 2017(I) CLR-313 : State of Orissa and another vrs. Sri Dwarika Das Agarwalla—When State deals with a citizen, it should not ordinarily rely on technicalities—If State is satisfied that, the case of the citizens is a just one, even though legal defences may be open to it, it must act as an honest person. Because, State is a virtuous litigant. (iv) 2022(II) CCC (S.C.)-6 & 2022(II) CLR (S.C.)-101: Sukh Dutt Ratra & Anr. vrs. State of Himachal Pradesh—State cannot shield itself behind ground of delay and latches—In such a situation, there cannot be a limitation to doing justice. (v) 2022(II) CCC- (Jharkhand)-204 : Sharada Devi vrs. Central Coalfields Limited and Ors.—On technical grounds State should not deny to its citizens just dues. 34. As per the discussions and the observations made above, when it is held that, the amount claimed by the plaintiff from the defendants, i.e., from the State and its officers are his just claim, then at this juncture, by applying the principles of law, enunciated by the Hon’ble Courts and // 18 // Apex Courts in the ratio of the decisions referred to supra, the defendants (State and its officers) cannot and shall not shield themselves from payment of the just claims of the plaintiff on the ground of delay in approaching the court by the plaintiff. 35. Because, the State and its officers, i.e., the defendants being virtuous litigants as per law, they should not ordinarily deal with their citizens like the plaintiff to debar him(plaintiff) from getting his legitimate dues by relying on the technicalities, i.e., on the ground of limitation and others. 36. When it is held above that, the amount awarded by the 1st appellate court in favour of the plaintiff, i.e., Rs.49,449/- as per its judgment and decree passed in M.A. No.02 of 2000 are not unjust and improper and when the defendants being the State and its officers are precluded under law from denying the just and proper claims of its citizens like plaintiff, then at this juncture, the question of interfering with the judgment and decree passed by the 1st appellate court in M.A. No.02 of 2000 in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants through this 2nd appeal filed by the defendants does not arise. 37. So far as the payment of interest on the awarded amount of Rs.49,449/- at the rate of 12% interest per annum as directed by the 1st // 19 // appellate court in its judgment and decree passed in M.A. No.02 of 2000 on the ground of delayed payment is concerned; 38. The law on that aspect has already been clarified by the Hon’ble Courts in the ratio of the following decision:- 2023(4) Civil Court Cases -738 (P&H) : Finance Commissioner and Principal Secretary to Government of Haryana and Ors. vrs. Randhir Singh Yadav—CPC, 1908—Section 34—interest—Delayed payments—Grant of interest in case of money decree—Only Bank rate of interest being given by the Nationalized Bank can be granted. Grant of interest at the rate of 18% per annum, reduced to 9% per annum. 39. So, by applying the principles of law enunciated in the ratio of the aforesaid decision, the grant of interest by the 1st appellate court on the awarded amount of Rs.49,449/- at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of filing of the suit, till the date of realization is reduced from 12% to 9% per annum by applying the principles of law enunciated by the Hon’ble Court in the ratio of the decisions reported in 2023(4) Civil Court Cases-738(P&H). 40. On analysis of the facts and law concerning the suit/appeals at hand as per the discussions and observations made above, though there is no justification under law for making interference with the awarded amount passed by the 1st appellate court in its judgment and decree passed in M.A. No.02 of 2000 but, there is justification under law for making interference with directed rate of interest to be paid by the // 20 // defendants (appellant) to the respondent(plaintiff) on the awarded amount of Rs.49,445/- as directed by the 1st appellate court by applying the principles of law enunciated in the ratio of the above decision reported in 2023(4) Civil Court Cases-738(P&H). 41. So, for meeting the ends of justice and by applying the ratio of the above decision of the Hon’ble Courts reported in 2023(4) Civil Court Cases-738(P&H) the rate of interest awarded by the 1st appellate court in favour of the plaintiff on the decretal amount is reduced from 12% to 9% per annum. For which, the appeal filed by the appellants(defendants) shall succeed in part, but not in full. 42.
Decision
In the result, the appeal filed by the appellants is allowed in part on contest, but, without cost. 43. The judgment and decree dated 06.12.2001 and 21.12.2001 respectively passed by the 1st appellate court in M.A. No.02 of 2000 in respect of the amounts awarded in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants are confirmed, but directed the rate of interest to be paid by the defendants to the plaintiff on the awarded amount in the same judgment and decree of the 1st appellate court in M.A. No.02 of 2000 is reduced from 12% to 9% per annum. // 21 // 44. Therefore, the suit be end and the same filed by the plaintiff vide M.S. No.05 of 1997 is decreed in part on contest against the defendants but, without cost. 45. The respondents are directed to pay a sum of Rs.49,449/- with pendente lite and future interest thereon at the rate of 9% per annum to the plaintiff from the date of filing of the suit till the date of realization within a period of three months hence, failing which, the plaintiff is at liberty to realize the said amount from the defendants through due process as per law. Judge Orissa High Court, Cuttack The 29th of February, 2024/ Jagabandhu, P.A. ( A.C. Behera ) Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: JAGABANDHU BEHERA Designation: PA Reason: Authentication Location: OHC, CUTTACK Date: 29-Feb-2024 14:42:32