JUDGMENT

Malik, J. - This is a plaintiff's appeal. The plaintiff the Gorakhpur Electric Supply Co., Ltd., Gorakhpur, through the Official Liquidator, filed a suit in the Court of the Munsif of Gorakhpur for realisation of Rs. 2860-0-0. The defendants were a firm of general merchants, who had supplied to the company before the winding up certain lubricants and the price of the lubricants supplied was due to them. They filed a Suit No. 361 of 1932 for recovery of this amount. That suit was decreed by the learned Temporary Civil Judge of Gorakhpur. The defendants, who were the decree, holders, applied for execution of the decree and they realised the amount due to them under that decree between the dates 18th February 1935 and 5tS August 1935 by attachment of the bills for electric current consumed by certain third parties, which amount was payable by them to the plaintiff company.

2. Before the dates of these realisations, however, an application for winding up of the company was tiled in this Court on 31st August 1934. The winding-up order was made on 2nd September 1936. In the year 1989 on 3rd August, the Official Liquidator applied to the learned Company Judge for an order u/s 227 for the refund of this amount, which they alleged the defendants had wrongly realised from the company during the pendency of the winding up petition in this Court. The defendants also filed an application before the learned Company Judge under the same section for an order validating these payments to them. The learned Company Judge by an order dated 19th August 1940 dismissed both these applications and held that the Official Liquidator, if he had any right, should file a suit, but he was not prepared to validate these payments as requested by the defendants. The suit was filed on 24th August 1940. The defendants urged that the suit was barred by limitation.

3. Both the Courts below have held that Article 49, Limitation Act, was the Article applicable and, while the trial Court held that limitation started to run from April 1936 when provisional liquidators were appointed by this Court, the lower appellate Court has held that the view of the trial Court that limitation began to run from April 1936 was erroneous, and that limitation started against the plaintiff company on the dates when the invalid payments were made to the defendants, that is, according to the lower appellate Court, the cause of action arose on various dates between 18th February 1935 and 6th August 1935. The lower appellate Court further considered the question of giving the liquidator the benefit of the period during which his application u/s 227 was pending before the learned Company Judge and came to the conclusion that even if that period were excluded u/s 14, Limitation Act, the suit would still remain time barred. It is against that order that the plaintiff has come up in appeal to this Court. Learned Counsel for the plaintiff appellant has urged that Article 49, Limitation Act, does not apply to this case and the proper Article applicable is Article 112. Learned Counsel for the defendants, on the other hand, has relied on Article 49 and in the alternative on Article 62. Article 49, Limitation Act, reads as follows:

For other specific moveable property (the word 'other' has been used because certain specific moveable properties have been mentioned in Article 48), or for compensation for wrongfully taking or injuring or wrongfully detaining the same. Three years. When the property is wrongfully taken or injured or when the detainer's possession becomes unlawful.

Obviously this Article contemplates a suit provided for by Sections 10 and 11, Specific Relief Act (Act 1 [i] of 1877). u/s 10, a person entitled to the possession of specific moveable property may recover the same in the manner prescribed by the Code of Civil Procedure, and u/s 11 any person having the possession or control of a moveable property, of which he is not the owner, may be compelled to deliver it to the perso