NARAYAN BADLAJI SALI Vs. STATE OF BOMBAY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a plaintiffs' appeal from the rejection of their plaint. Plaintiffs Nos. 1 to 5 and Laxman, the father of plaintiffs Nos. 6 to 8, and the husband of plaintiff No. 9, and Pandurang, the brother of plaintiff No. 10 and the husband of plaintiffNo. 11, had along with certain other persons, formed an association at Ellichpur for carrying on a business of selling' yarn. At the relevant time certain Control Orders were in force by virture of which they could carry on their business only after obtaining licences from the Deputy Commissioner. By their order dated January 24, 1947, the former Provincial Government of the Central Provinces and Berar cancelled their licences and they were given time to dispose of their stock within one month. This time was extended by one month by the Deputy Commissioner, Amravati, by his memorandum dated February 25, 1947. Before this order of the Deputy Commissioner was communicated to the plaintiffs, the Civil Supplies Inspector, Elliehpur, asked these dealers to hand over all the undisposed of stock to the dealers whose licences were not cancelled. After the Deputy Commissioner had passed the order of extension, one of the yarn dealers Vishnu Parashram approached the Deputy Commissioner offering to pay the price of yarn together with profits admissible to the dealers and on the basis of this promise the Deputy Commissioner cancelled his order granting extension of time to the dealers. This was done on February 27, 1947. By virtue of the later order of the Deputy Commissioner, Vishnu Parashram was thus entitled to receive the stock held by the dealers and sell it.

(2.) ACCORDING to the plaintiffs, the Civil Supplies Inspector, Elliehpur, illegally and highhandedly seized and locked the stock lying with the dealers along with all account -books, papers, furniture etc. on February 26, 1947, and eventually handed over the stock to Vishnu Parashram. The plaintiffs' grievance is that the dealers were deprived of their stock but, were not paid the price thereof. They, therefore, made various representations to the Government. Nothing having come out of it, the plaintiffs, Laxman and Pandurang served a notice on the Government under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure on August 10, 1949, in which they claimed a sum of Rs. 7,248 -11 -0 from the Government and also interest at Re. 1 per cent. per month from February 27, 1947, till realisation.

(3.) ON the first date which was fixed for settling issues, the defendant's counsel made an application in. winch he sought certain particulars from the plaintiffs. That application was granted and the plaint was accordingly amended by the plaintiffs. Thereafter, a written statement was filed on behalf of the defendant. In that statement one of the points taken is that the notice served on the Government was not proper inasmuch as it did not disclose the names of all the plaintiffs as required by law. The trial Court thereupon framed the following preliminary issue: Whether the notice served by the plaintiffs is improper and invalid? It found against the plaintiffs on this issue. Though the trial Court has, at the end of its order, stated that it dismissed the suit, it has made certain observations in para. 8 of its order from which it would appear that what it purported to do was to reject the plaint. In view of the observations of the learned Judge we would treat his order not as one dismissing the suit, but as rejecting the plaint.