JUDGMENT

D.P. Uniyal, J. - This appeal by the defendant, the State of U. P., is directed against the decision of the Additional Civil Jude, Dehra Dun, decreeing the plaintiff's suit for Rs. 23,186/15/6 with pendent lite and future interest per annum and proportionate costs.

2. On 1-9-1947 the defendant requisitioned six motor vehicles belonging to the plaintiff's firm through Sri J. M. Sinha, the then Petrol Rationing Officer, Dehra Dun. The vehicles were taken for emergent work connected with the evacuation of refuse 40 gees from West Pakistan in the wake of communal disturbances following the partition of India. It was common ground that no hire was settled for the vehicles on the date when they were taken possession of by the defendant's agent, and that the petrol supplied in the vehicles to facilitate their removal from Dehra Dun was paid for by the plaintiff. The allegation of the plaintiff was that in January 1948 Sri R. P. Ghildayal the then Regional Transport Officer, Meerut, had told the vehicle owners that the hire would be Rs. 30/. per day per vehicle. Acting on the said representation the plaintiff submitted monthly bills of hire to the defendant at the above rate. It was on this footing that a sum of Rs. 35,773/12/- inclusive of cost of petrol, was said to have become payable to the plaintiff. The plaintiff further asserted that the defendant failed to return his vehicle U.P.S. 1965 on account of which he suffered a loss of Rs. 7,500/-.

3. It was on these allegations that a total sum of Rs. 40,273/12/- was sought to be recovered after deducting Rs. 3,000/- received from the defendant on 26-1-1948.

4. The defendant contested the suit. It was not denied that hire of the vehicles had not been settled on the date of their delivery and they had been removed without specifying the period for which they were to be used. The appellant pleaded that the vehicles were taken on hire at Rs. 30/- per working day and that the appellant was prepared to pay Rs. 11/13/- per non-working day, less Rs. 3/- as diet charges supplied to the driver and the cleaner. As regards vehicle No. UPS 1965, it was alleged that it had been, released by the appellant on the 26th March 1948, but the driver of the respondent had not cared to remove it and left it uncared for. The appellant disowned its liability for the price of the said vehicle. It was further pleaded that the suit was time barred and was liable to be dismissed. Alternatively, it was pleaded that the price of vehicle No. UPS could not he more than Rs. 1,000/-.

5. The learned Civil Judge held that it was the common case of the parties that no hire was settled at the time the vehicles were taken by the appellant. The evidence, however, disclosed that Sri R. P. Ghildayal, Regional Transport Officer, had called a meeting of the vehicle owners and promised that they would be paid at the rate of Rs. 30/- per day per vehicle. The learned Sessions Judge, therefore, calculated the hire at the rate of Rs. 30/- per day and not at the rate of Rs. 30/- per working day only. He did not accept the contention of the State Government that the hire of Rs. 30/- per vehicle had been settled on the basis of per working day. He did not believe the statement of Sri Ghildayal that the expression 'hire per day' was tantamount to hire per working day. Admittedly there - was some talk about the hire but nothing had been said at the meeting about the rate of hire for non-working day. The statement of Khusi Ram, the plaintiff's witness, was clearly to the effect that Sri Ghildayal had promised to pay Rs. 30/- per day per vehicle and had not said that the hire of Rs. 30/- per vehicle was for working days only. The learned Civil Judge accepted the statement of Khusi Ram as being the correct version of what transpired at the meeting of the vehicle owners. In our opinion the learned judge was right in placing reliance on the evidence of Khusi Ram on this part of the case.

6. The case of the appellant that the responde