STATE OF ORISSA Vs. RAMWATAR AGARWALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AFTER going through the voluminous documents and hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we feel the entire case is much ado about nothing, inasmuch as out of Ten issues, Nine have become final and concluded.

(2.) MONEY Suit No. 20 of 1975 was filed by the original respondent No. 1 (since deceased), a businessman, as the sole plaintiff inter alia praying to pass a decree for recovery of Rs. 35,98,441.60 towards cost of paddy/rice, etc. and damages, morefully described in Schedules 'A', 'B' and 'C' of the plaint, together with costs of the suit and pendentelite and future interest. But subsequently the suit claim was reduced to Rs. 26,11,731.76 as the plaintiff was unable to pay the court fees required on the amount initially claimed.

(3.) IT is alleged that being enraged by such demand, defendant No. 1 threatened the plaintiff to cancel his licence if he insisted upon his claim. The plaintiff was facing acute financial difficulties and he again demanded payment of the money payable to him and stated that if the same was not paid, he would be constrained to file an Arbitration Case. Defendant No. 1 thereafter passed an order under the Maintenance of Internal Security Act, 1971 (for short 'MISA') and got him arrested and detained on the midnight of May, 31, 1974. Thereafter defendant No. 1 ordered defendant Nos. 3 and 4, two Executive Magistrates, to seize the entire paddy and rice of the plaintiff stocked in his Junegarh Rice Mill and to deliver the same to R.C.M.S., Junegarh. He further ordered to seize the rice and paddy stocked by the plaintiff in his Kesinga Rail Road Mill. The orders of defendant No. 1 were immediately carried out. The premises of the two Mills were ransacked and the properties including rice, paddy, etc. were all damaged. Some APR Force was deployed to prevent entry of any of the representatives of the plaintiff to enter into his Mills. The Chowkidars and other employees of the plaintiff were assaulted and the office rooms of the Mills were also ransacked. The plaintiff, after being released on bail, served a registered notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure on September 3, 1974 whereafter, the defendants returned some of the stocks of paddy and rice to the plaintiff, but did not return the entire stock or the articles seized. Therefore, the plaintiff filed the Money Suit claiming damages and cost as set out in the various Schedules to the plaint, and prayed for a decree in his favour.