The Civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain a suit challenging the legality of a requisition order made by the District Magistrate under Section 3 of the Act and that the Court can award compensation to the owner of the requisitioned vehicle if the Government refuses or deliberately omits to determine the compensation.

( 1 ) THESE are two connected second appeals by a plaintiff from the decision of the learned Civil judge, Gorakhpur, dismissing his two suits for recovery of damages or compensation from the government of the State of Uttar Pradesh. The facts which have led upto these appeals are these. The plaintiff, Prem Lal Singhania, was the owner of a motor truck and a Chevrolet motor car. On 12-1-1948 the District Magistrate of Gorakhpur, purporting to act under the powers delegated to him by the State Government under Section 9 of the U. P. Requisition of Motor Vehicles Act of 1947, passed an order requisitioning both these vehicles. The order required the plaintiff singhania to place them at the disposal of the Superintendent of Police within 24 hours of the service of this order. According to the plaintiff, the order was illegal and unjustified as the essential conditions for the exercise of the requisitioning power did not exist and it was passed with the object of causing wrongful loss to the plaintiff. The plaintiff alleged that the Chevrolet car was kept uncovered and in the open during the period of requisition with the result that its paint was damaged and some parts became rusty. He had to spend Rs. 760/-/- on getting the car re-painted and repaired. Both the vehicles were released on 18-12-1948, having remained in the custody of the Government for over three months. The plaintiff served on the Government a notice under Section 80, C. P. C. claiming damages and compensation but it had no effect. He thereupon filed two separate suits in respect of the truck and the car. He claimed compensation for the motor car at the rate of Rs. 10/and for the truck at the rate of Rs. 40/-per day. He also claimed Rs. 760/- as compensation for damage done to the car. The claim in respect of the truck totalled Rs. 3,300/- and of the car Rs. 1410/ -. He also claimed interest.

( 2 ) THE State contested the suit and denied liability. It admitted that the truck and the car were requisitioned but denied that the requisitioning order was illegal. It also alleged that the plaintiff had suffered no damages and had no cause of action. Government also contended that the Civil court had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit and that the compensation, for the requisitioned vehicles could be determined only by the, Government and not by the court.

( 3 ) THE learned Munsif, Gorakhpur rejected the plaintiffs case that the order of requisition was illegal or that the Government or any of its officers acted maliciously or mala fide against him. The claim for compensation for damages to the Chevrolet car was dismissed. It however, held that the suit was not barred as Government had failed to discharge its duty of determining the compensation and paying it to the owner of the vehicle. He held that the plaintiff was, in these circumstances, entitled to receive compensation from the Government for having been deprived of the use of car and truck at the rate of Rs. 10/- and Rs. 40/- per day respectively. In the result he decreed the suit in respect of the truck for Rs. 2640/- and of the car for Rs. 680/- with proportionate costs.

( 4 ) ON appeal by the State, the learned Civil Judge, Gorakhpur reversed the finding o the trial court on the question of jurisdiction of the Civil Court and held that it was barred under the requisition of Motor Vehicles Act. He also held that, in a case of requisition under the Act, the owner can get compensation only when it is determined by the State Government and that if it "refuses to determine the compensation or omits to do so the owner of the vehicle would not be entitled to get any compensation". In the result, he allowed both the appeals and dismissed the suit with costs. Aggrieved by these decisions the plaintiff has come to the Court in second appeals.

( 5 ) MR. Ambika Prasad, learned counsel for the appellant urged the following arguments in support of this appeal. First, the finding of the appellate Court tha