Government Of A.P. vs M/S. Taranga Advertisers
2022 Latest Caselaw 3894 Tel

                                  1


     HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.VENKATESHWARA
                              REDDY

                    C.C.C.A. No. 117 OF 2003

ORDER :

The appellants/defendants have preferred this appeal under

section 96 of Code of Civil Procedure for short 'C.P.C.', assailing

the judgment and decree dated 10.06.2002 in O.S.No.903 of 1997

on the file of learned Additional Judge cum VI Senior Civil Judge,

City Civil Courts, Hyderabad.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and respondent

for the sake of convenience parties hereinafter referred as plaintiff

and defendants as arrayed in the original suit.

3. The plaintiff M/s.Taranga Advertisers has filed the original

suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.5,07,500/- against defendants No.1

and 2 namely Government of Andhra Pradesh represented by its

secretary (Finance and Planning department) and the

Commissioner, small savings and Lotteries Insurance building.

4. The main averments of the plaint are that plaintiff is an

advertising agency for telecasting advertisements in Television

Episodes of Doordarshan. The 2nd defendant sponsored the plaintiff

to telecast some advertisements to public relating to small savings

schemes and other schemes for the year 1992-93, 1993-94 and

1994-95. The plaintiff telecasted the advertisement only as per the

oral instructions of the 2nd defendant from time to time.

5. After the advertisements were telecasted in the episodes in

the prescribed time slots, the plaintiff used to obtain certificates

from Doordarshan. On previous occasions 2nd defendant used to

pay of the bills raised regularly. But in respect of the telecast of

advertisements made on 27.07.1993, 30.05.1994, 09.06.1994,

13.06.1994, 17.06.1994 and 20.07.1994 for total amount of

Rs.3,40,000/- the 2nd defendant failed to pay the said amount.

Accordingly, the plaintiff has claimed interest at 18% per annum

amounting to Rs.1,67,500/- together. The suit is filed for

Rs.5,07,500/- after issuing required notice as contemplated under

section 80 of code of Civil Procedure.

6. The 2nd defendant has filed detailed written statement

denying the plaintiffs claim stating that plaintiffs could not telecast

the advertisements without written orders from the 2nd defendant

and there was no occasion to give oral orders for telecast of

advertisements and the same is made clear in the letters dated

06.07.1996, 09.10.1996 and 26.10.1996. The defendants are not

liable to pay Rs.5,07,500/-. Regarding the program Karwan -E-

Gazal", it is stated that an amount of Rs.60,000/- was already paid

as per the proceedings dated 31.03.1993 and denied that in respect

of that program an amount of Rs.80,000/- is due as claimed by the

plaintiff and finally stated that plaintiff is not entitled for recovery

of suit claim.

7. Based on the pleadings of both sides, issues were settled.

During trial on behalf of plaintiffs, PW1 is examined and Ex.A1 to

A21 documents are marked. No evidence was adduced on behalf of

defendants. Their evidence was closed. The Court below after

hearing the learned counsel for plaintiffs decreed the suit with an

observation that plaintiff claimed Rs.3,40,000/- towards advertising

charges for telecasting episodes and Ex.A12 to A16 are office

copies of demand letters sent to defendant No.2 for which Ex.A17

and A18 are the reply letters dated 08.07.1996, wherein and where

under the second defendant replied that they are not liable to pay

any amount. The trial Court further observed that the oral evidence

of PW1 and the contents of Ex.A1 to A21 remained unchallenged,

since there is no cross examination by the defendants and no

evidence is adduced on behalf of defendants in support of their plea

in the written statement. The suit of the plaintiff is decreed for an

amount of Rs.3,40,000/- towards principal amount +interest at 18%

per annum as claimed to be Rs.5,07,500/- with a future interest

from the date of decree at 6% per annum. Feeling aggrieved by the

said judgment and decree of the trial court the defendants i.e.

Government of Andhra Pradesh represented by its secretary

(Finance and Planning department) and Commissioner small

savings and lotteries filed this appeal in the year 2003.

8. After hearing at some length, learned Government Pleader

for appeals submitted that though there is no evidence on record on

behalf of the defendants, the claim of the plaintiff based on the

cause of action dated 27.07.1993 is barred by limitation and that

the defendant could not cross examine PW1 though they have

taken clear plea in their written statement denying the suit claim.

No witness is examined on behalf of defendants and requested to

remit the matter to the trial Court for fresh disposal in accordance

with law by giving an opportunity to the defendants to adduce their

evidence in support of the pleadings in the written statement.

9. Learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff fairly conceded

that PW1 is not cross examined. The oral and documentary

evidence of PW1 remained uncontroverted and that there is no

evidence on behalf of the defendants. Thus the learned

Government Pleader for appeals and the learned counsel for the

plaintiffs have requested to remit the matter to the trial Court for

fresh disposal by giving opportunity to both the parties to lead

further evidence if any, by fixing a time schedule since the original

suit is filed in the year 1997 and it was disposed of in the year 2002

and appeal suit is filed in the year 2003.

10. Be it stated that plain reading of the impugned order would

show that PW1 was not cross examined. No opportunity was given

to the defendants to adduce their evidence. Therefore, it is

imperative on the part of the trial Court to give fair and reasonable

opportunity to the defendants to cross examine PW1 and to permit

the plaintiffs to adduce further evidence if any, thereafter to give

fair opportunity to the defendants to adduce their evidence with

reference to their pleadings and to dispose of the matter after

hearing both sides on merits within a specified time line.

11. In that view of the matter, considering the facts and

circumstances of the case, since the original suit was filed in the

year 1997, it was disposed of in the year 2002 and the appeal suit is

filed in the year 2003, PW1 was not cross examined on behalf of

the defendants nor defendants have adduced any evidence with

reference to their pleadings, the matter is remitted back to the trial

court for disposal afresh, with a direction to give reasonable

opportunity to the defendants to cross examine PW1, thereafter to

permit the plaintiffs to adduce further evidence, if any, and to

permit the defendants to adduce their evidence with reference to

their pleadings, to conclude the trial and dispose of the matter

within two months.

12. At this stage, learned Government Pleader for appeals and

learned counsel for the plaintiffs submitted to save time it is

desirable to direct both the parties to appear before the trial Court,

instead of trial Court issuing summons. Accordingly, considering

their request, both the parties are directed to appear before the

learned VI additional Senior Civil Judge, City Civil Courts,

Hyderabad on 17.08.2022. On such appearance, the trial Court

shall make every endeavour to dispose of the suit, on day to day

basis by giving reasonable opportunity to both the parties as

indicated above.

13. With the above observations, this appeal is disposed of. The

judgment and decree of the trial Court dated 10.06.2022 in

O.S.No.903/1997 is hereby set aside and the matter is remitted

back to the trial court for disposal afresh as indicated above within

two months from 17.08.2022. However, in the circumstances of the

case, there shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall

stand closed.

______________________________ A.VENKATESHWARA REDDY, J

27th July, 2022.

BV