JAMSHED BUTT Vs. STATE GOVT OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal Is by the plaintiff against the dismissal of his suit on the ground that it was barred by limitation consequent on the findings on the Issues framed as the preliminary issues for trial. The plaintiff instituted the suit claiming damages amounting to Rs. 18,000. The claim was based on the allegation that his property was seized wrongfully in criminal case no. 111 of 1947 as belonging to one Sardar Khan who was the accused in that case. According to the plaintiff, he filed an objection under Section 88 (6-A) of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying that the entire property attached belonged to him and that Sardar Khan had no interest of any kind in it. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Harda, investigated the claim preferred by the plaintiff and passed an order on 9-3-1948 allowing the objection to the extent of a -/12/- interest in the property seized but disallowing it to the extent of -/4/ -. The magistrate sold the properties for Rs. 49,880 and retained Rs. 12,470 as the -/4/- share of Sardar Khan. Stock of coal worth Rs. 2,120 remained undisposed of. Sardar Khan's share in the latter also was -/4/- i. e. Rs. 530. The suit was therefore instituted on 6-3-1949 claiming Rs. 13,000 as the price of the goods withheld and Rs. 5,000 (reduced in appeal to Rs. 2000/-) as damages for the wrongful and illegal attachment of the plaintiff's property and for cessation of the plaintiffs work in the Banapura shop due to the closure of the shop and its being sealed up by the police.

(2.) THE defendant denied that the plaintiff filed any objection claiming release of the entire property on the ground that it belonged to him. It was asserted that an application was made by one Amir Murtaza on 17^12-1947 claiming release of the entire property and that no claim of the plaintiff was investigated by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Harda. It was further pleaded that the plaintiff was not a party to those proceedings " and that the order by the magistrate on 9-3-1948 afforded no cause of action to the plaintiff. According to the defendant, the suit was accordingly barred by time, it having been brought after one year of attachment on 12-12-1947.

(3.) THE learned trial judge found that the plaintiff did not prefer any objection through Amir Murtaza, that the objection filed. by Amir Murtaza was not for the plaintiff and the subsequent proceedings were not conducted by the plaintiff. On these findings, the learned trial judge held that the plaintiff could not invoke Section 88 (6a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the suit was governed by article 29 of the Limitation Act. As the suit was instituted more than one year after the date of attachment, the learned judge dismissed the suit as barred by time.