VIRENDRA KUMAR KHAIRULAL JAISWAL Vs. K L ANEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff has filed this appeal challenging the dismissal of his suit on the preliminary ground of limitation. The plaintiff filed this suit for damages amounting to Rs. 1500/- against the defendant, who was at the relevant time a Police Sub-Inspector on the ground that he had Against order of P.D. Apshankar, Civil J., Sr. Division, Yeotmal, in Suit No illegally seized the goods of the plaintiff which he had purchased from the Hyderabad Firm. The seizure of the goods was on 24-7-1971. The goods were seized by him purporting to act under the Bombay Prohibition Act.

(2.) The plaintiff gave a notice to the defendant under Section 80 of the Civil P.C. on 28-1-1972. The suit is, therefore, filed beyond the period of four months and within the period of six months from the date of the act complained of. The defendant, therefore, raised a preliminary objection before the lower Court that the suit not having been filed within a period of four months from the date of the act complained of, the suit was barred by limitation. The defendant contended that the suit would be governed by the provisions of Section 146-A of the Bombay Prohibitions Act which specifically provides for a period of limitation of four months for bringing an action against the Government Officer and such suit has to be instituted within four months from the date of the act complained of. The plaintiff, however, contended that since the suit was against the Government Officer, a two months' Notice under Section 80 of the Civil P. C. had to be given and, therefore, the period of the said notice had to be excluded for computing the period of limitation for the suit. There is no dispute that if the two months' period for the notice under Section 80 of the Civil P.C. is excluded, then the suit would be within limitation.

(3.) Section 146A of the Bombay Prohibition Act provides that all actions which may be lawfully brought against the Government or any of the aforesaid officers or persons, in respect or anything done or alleged to have been done in pursuance of this Act, shall be instituted within four months from the date of the act complained of and not afterwards. and any such action shall be dismissed etc. The officers mentioned in Section 146-A are the officers referred to in the earlier sections of the Act. It has been contended on behalf of the plaintiff-appellant that since a notice under Section 80 of the code of Civil Procedure is mandatory, the period of such notice will have to be excluded under the provision of Section 15(2) of the Limitation Act. Section 15(2) of the Limitation Act provides that in computing the period of limitation for any suit of which notice has been given, or for which the previous consent or sanction of the Government or any other authority is required, in accordance with the requirements of any law for the time being in force, the period of such notice or, as the case may be, the time required for obtaining such consent or sanction shall be executed. If Section 15(2) of the limitation Act, 1963, can be invoked, then in that case the suit would be within limitation.