( 1 ) RESPONDENT was the original plaintiff who preferred Regular Civil Suit no. 12 of 1975 in the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division) at Junagadh against the present appellant claiming refund of octroi totaling to Rs. 1,300/ -. The Trial Court dismissed the suit. The plaintiff- respondent approached the District Court, Junagadh with regular Civil Appeal No. 48 of 1977 which came to be allowed vide judgment dated 5. 2. 1981 by the learned Assistant Judge, Junagadh. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, original defendant Junagadh Nagar Palika has preferred this second appeal. While admitting this appeal, following questions were formulated by this Court: (1) Whether a suit filed by a person other than importer for refund of the Court fee is maintainable when the receipt is endorsed in favour of self by the consignor? (2) Whether to attract the levy of octroi it is necessary that not only the sale should be within the octroi limits of the Municipality but their assumption or use also should be within the octroi limits of the Municipality. (3) What is the true and correct interpretation of the words brought within the municipal limits for use, consumption or sale.

( 2 ) THE facts of the case in a narrow compass are that according to the the plaintiff, it is a registered partnership firm and is engaged in the business of chemists and druggists at junagadh. The plaintiff firm is an accredited whole-seller of a company known as Smith kline and French (India) Ltd. , Bangalore (skf ). During S. Y. 2030, SKF had sent goods to Junagadh. Said goods were consigned to self from Bangalore and according to the plaintiff, goods belonged to SKF. Goods were not imported by the plaintiff. According to the plaintiff, it was agent of SKF and, therefore, at the time of entry of the goods, on different dates, amount of Rs. 1,300/-, in all, was deposited at the octroi post. Thereafter, goods were exported outside the limits of Junagadh Municipality and export certificate was obtained. The plaintiff, therefore, asserted that the defendant-appellant must refuned the amount of octroi paid by the plaintiff earlier. Reliance is placed on relevant rules for the purpose. However, the Municipality refused to refund the amount to the plaintiff on the ground that the plaintiff was not importer and since after import, the ownership had changed, the plaintiff was not entitled to any amount of refund. The plaintiff, therefore, served a statutory notice and thereafter instituted a suit.

( 3 ) THE case of the defendant-appellant in the written statement is that the plaintiff had no cause of action and, therefore, the suit is not maintainable. The defendant denied that the plaintiff had a right to claim refund. It was contended that even according to the plaintiff, the plaintiff is not importer and that the documents relating to the goods were received through bank and, therefore, according to the defendant, the plaintiff became owner of the goods which were consigned to self by SKF. It was contended that there is change of ownership after entry of the goods and the plaintiff, suppressing this fact, had shown SKF to be exporter of the said goods. It was alleged that this was so done only with a view to claim refund because refund can be claimed only if SKF exports the goods. It was contended further in the written statement that all invoices are in the name of manufacturer i. e. SKF and that after the plaintiff has taken delivery of the documents, the goods were exported. It was, therefore, denied that the plaintiff had a right to claim refund of the said amount.

( 4 ) THE Trial Court framed the following issues: (1) Whether the plaintiff has a right to bring this suit? (2) Whether the plaintiff proves that it is a duly registered partnership firm? (3) Whether the plaintiff proves that it has taken delivery of the goods in question as the agent of this Smith Kline and Co. as alleged? (4) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to claim refund of Rs