A suit for compensation for wrongful seizure and sale of goods is governed by Article 120 of the Limitation Act, being the residuary article.

S.C.Misra, J.

1. This is an appeal by the plaintiffs who are a registered firm having their principal place of business at Purnea with branches at various places within the district of Purnea. The suit was instituted for realisation of a sum of Rs. 15,895/-, which represented the value of 18 bales of cloth, together with interest thereon and loss of profit, in the following circumstances.

2. The plaintiffs are dealers in textile goods and also acted as importers of cloth for the sadar sub-division of the district of Purnea and held a licence from the Government of Bihar for that purpose. The plaintiffs accordingly ordered purchase of cloth in different parts of the country. In the year 1945, there was restriction on the carriage of goods to Purnea by railway through Karha Gola and, accordingly, the plaintiffs arranged to get their consignment of cloth through Nirmali railway station in the district of Bhagalpur. The arrangement was that delivery of the consignment would be taken at Ninnali and thereafter it would be taken to Purnea by boat and bullock carts. 18 bales of cloth were received accordingly at the Nirmali railway station and the plaintiffs men went to take delivery of the goods on production of the railway receipts, but, under orders from the Additional District Magistrate of Saharsa, the railway receipts were seized by some local officers of the Government, who took delivery of the consignment. The plaintiffs came to learn later on that the cloth was sold and the sale proceeds were deposited in the Government Sub-Treasury at Supaul.

All attempts on the part of the plaintiffs to recover their property failed in spite of the recommendation of the District Magistrate of Purnea for release of the cloth. When, however, the plaintiffs learnt that all the 18 bales had been sold away, they approached the Additional District Magistrate of Saharsa for payment of compensation, at the rate of ex-mill price plus 10 per cent, but the Additional District Magistrate of Saharsa refused to pay the compensation and, accordingly, notice had to be served on the Government under Section 80 of the Civil "Procedure Code and the present suit had to be instituted basing the cause of action on the refusal of the Additional District Magistrate of Saharsa to accede to the plaintiffs claim, which took place on 15th July, 1946.

3. The defendant, who is the State of Bihar, resisted the claim of the plaintiffs on a number of grounds including limitation and inadequacy of the notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It was also pleaded that Sec.16 (1) of the Defence of India Act was a bar to the maintainability of the suit. It was also stated that as the entire procedure of requisition and acquisition under Rule 75-A of the Defence of India Rules was done in good faith for maintenance of supplies essential to the life of the community and in conformity with the law then existing, the suit was not maintainable also under Sec.17, Sub-section (1) of the Defence of India Act.

4. The learned Additional Subordinate Judge of Madhepura tried the suit and dismissed it holding that the suit was barred by limitation under Articles 26 and 49 of the Indian Limitation Act. He held, however, in favour of the plaintiffs on all other points such as jurisdiction of the Court to try the suit, Sections 16 (1) and 17 (1) of the Defence of India Act not being a bar, details given by the plaintiffs to be correct, amount of compensation not exaggerated and the plaintiffs also being entitled to get interest.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants has contended that the Court below was wrong in holding that the suit was barred under Article 49 of the Limitation Act and that it should have been held that the claim was within time as Article 120 of the Limitation Act-applied to the present case. The refusal by the Additional District Magistrate of Saharsa to pay the compensation to the plaintiffs having been made on 15th July, 1946, and the suit having b