Article 62 of the Limitation Act is to be strictly construed and should only be applied in cases where there is clear proof that the defendant received the money for the plaintiffs' use.

Shib Chandra Prasad, J.

1. The plaintiffs are the appellants. They have appealed against the judgment of the District Judge of Purnea reversing a decision of the Munsif of Kishanganj in a suit filed by the plaintiffs-appellants for realisation of Rs. 594-6-0 from defendant No. 1, the Bihar State Co-operative Bank, Ltd.

2. The plaintiffs case was that plaintiff No. 1 was the proprieor of the firm plaintiff No. 2. The plaintiffs had ordered 900 bags of salt to be supplied by defendant No. 1, the agreed rate between the parties being Rs. 6-8-6 per bag of 2 maunds, This agreement was arrived at some time in April or May, 1950. Defendant No. 1 supplied the commodity in three consignments and for realisation of the price, railway receipts were sent to the plaintiffs through the Central Bank of India, Kishanganj Branch. The three consignments had been rent under invoice Nos. 4980. dated 13-11-1950, 5345, dated 13-12-1950, and 5390, dated 19-12-1950.

The railway receipts were dated 10-11-1950, 11-12-1950 and 16-12-1950. It may also be mentioned that the plaintiffs had paid Rs. 1,200.00 in advance. The plaintiffs contended that when the railway receipts were made over to them by the Central Bank of India it was found by the plaintiffs that defendant No. 1 had charged Rs. 7-2-0 per bag instead of Rs. 6-8-6 as agreed between the parties. There was a large amount of correspondence between the parties on this point. Ultimately the defendant denied his liability for any excess charge. The plaintiffs alleged, also, that on 27-8-1954, the defendant had agreed to pay the amount under claim.

3. In the written statement which was filed by defendant No. 1, the contesting party, it was alleged that the price agreed upon was never Rs. 6-8-6, but it was Rs. 6-13-6 per bas plus annas 0-4-6 per bag as the commission of the defendant according to the order of defendant No. 2, the State Government, and, therefore, the price charged by defendant No. 1 at Rs. 7-2-0 per bag was correct. Defendant No. 1 also denied the allegation made by the plaintiffs that it had agreed on 27-8-1954, to pay the amount under claim.

4. It was also contended by defendant No. 1 that the claim of the plaintiffs was barred by limitation because Article 62 of the Limitation Act applied and the suit having been brought more than three years after the money was received by the defendant, the plaintiffs claim could not be entertained.

5. Defendant No. 2, the State of Bihar, filed another written statement contending that it had no concern either with defendant No. 1 or with the transaction in question.

6. The learned Munsif found that the agreement between the parties was that the salt was to be supplied by defendant No. 1 to the plaintiffs at the rate of Rs. 6-8-6 and not Rs. 7-2-0 per bag as alleged by the defendant, and, therefore, the plaintiffs were entitled to realise the excess amount paid by them to the defendant No. 1. On the point of limitation the learned Munsif was of the view that it was Article 120 of the Indian Limitation Act and not Article 62 nor Article 96 of the Act which applied, and, therefore, the suit was not barred by limi-tation. As regards defendant No. 2 the learned Munsif held that it had no concern with the transaction jn question and, therefore, that defendant was not liable for any amount. Accordingly, the learned Munsif passed a decree in favour of the plaintiffs against the defendant No. 1.

7. It may be mentioned that the claim laid by the plaintiffs was as follows : Rs. 534-6-0 representing the excess amount paid, Rs. 10.00 as cost of notice and Rs. 50.00 as cost of railway journey etc. undertaken by the plaintiffs who came over to Patna to discuss the matter with defendant No. 1. It appears that the learned Munsif decreed the suit in full. As against defendant No. 2 it was dismissed.

8. The learned District Judge agreed with the Munsif on the question of the rate contracted bet-ween the parties, that is to say. Rs. 6-8-6 pies per bag and he