SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.

( 1 ) THE plaintiff, late Shri Bakshish Singh Dhaliwal, filed a suit for recovery against the Union of India as the first defendant and the State of Punjab as the second defendant. The original claim was much larger but in terms of the amended plaint, the claim is confined to recovery of Rs. 32,51,599/ -.

( 2 ) THE plaint sets out that in the year 1944-45 the plaintiff was engaged in contractual works for CPWD on a large scale. The plaintiff was, however, arrested under the Defence of India Rules by the Punjab Police on 12. 4. 1944. He was released by the High Court of Judicature at Lahore but was soon re-arrested on 26. 4. 1944 under the provisions of Section 420 IPC. The origination of the complaint was in respect of the works carried out by the plaintiff in respect of a contract at Burma. Searches were carried out at the house of the plaintiff and cash amount of Rs. 5. 00 lacs, 6 trucks and one Buick car of the plaintiff were seized under the provisions of Section 94 Cr. P. C. These vehicles are stated to have been sold at a nominal sum of Rs. 18,500/- on account of improper maintenance by the police authorities.

( 3 ) THE principal cause arose on 23. 10. 1944 when the Deputy Superintendent of police, Mr. Tek Singh, moved an application before the Court of the District and sessions Judge, Jullundur under Section 3 of the Criminal Law Amendment ordinance No. XXXVIII of 1944 (hereinafter referred to as the said Ordinance) to attach the properties of the plaintiff. Thus, various amounts due to the plaintiff as also the deposits of the plaintiff with banks were attached. The plaintiff has claimed the amount so attached apart from business losses. The plaintiff has also claimed interest @ 9% per annum.

( 4 ) THE plaint further states that the plaintiff was prosecuted criminally which resulted in his conviction and finally on 31. 8. 1966 a fine of Rs. 1,51,800/- was imposed by the Supreme Court of India. It is, thus, stated that that was the only amount which the defendants will be legally entitled to and the excess amount attached was illegal and unjustified.

( 5 ) THE Union of India in the written statement claimed that the suit was not maintainable and that the plaintiff is claiming the same relief in the proceedings initiated before the District Judge, Jullundar under the said ordinance. The plaintiff had been charged for cheating by making representations to the Government of Burma and wrongly obtaining payments of money including payments in respect of works which had not been carried out by the plaintiff as the contractor. The allegations against the plaintiff were found to be correct right till the highest Court and the Supreme Court had only modified the compulsory fine in respect of one charge and reduced it from rs. 1,08,400/- to Rs. 54,200/ -. The attachment of various properties and the value thereof have also been set out in the written statement.

( 6 ) DEFENDANT no. 2, State of Punjab, also contested the suit taking almost similar pleas.

( 7 ) ON the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed on 11. 5. 1972:-1. Whether the plaint does not disclose a cause of action" 2. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is barred under Section 17 of the Defence of India Rules, 1939" 3. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is barred under clauses 14 and 15 of the criminal Law (Amendment) Ordinance, 1944" 4. Whether the notice under Section 80 CPC served on the defendants is invalid" 5. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is within limitation" 6. Whether the seizure of the properties mentioned in paragraph 4 of the plaint was illegal, mala fide or wrongful" 7. Whether the defendants did not take reasonable care of the seized property and wrongfully sold the same" If so, to what effect" 8. Whether the attachment of the properties (mentioned in paras 5, 10 and 11 of the plaint), under Ordinance 38 of 1944 was illegal, mala fide or wrongful" If so, is the plaintiff entitled to compensation or retu