( 1. ) THIS appeal arises from an order passed by the trial Court rejecting the plaint on the ground that it is barred by time prescribed by section 68 of the Madhya Pradesh Excise Act (hereinafter called the Act ). On appeal, the learned Additional District Judge reversed that finding and held that the suit was outside the purview of section 68 of the Excise Act. He, therefore, ordered remand to the trial Court for proceeding further with the trial on merits. The learned Additional District Judge came to the conclusion that the suit is based on a contract between the parties and it is not in respect of any act done in pursuance of the Act.

( 2. ) BRIEFLY stated, the plaintiffs suit is that the State Government through its representatives and employees acting for and on behalf of it held public auction sale for liquor shops in Mandla district in the month of January, 1967, for the year 1967-68, which was to commence from April 1, 1967 and to end on March 31, 1968. At the time of, and before the auction of the excise contract the auction authorities as well as the excise authorities representing and acting on behalf of the Government had given out, represented and assured to intending bidders including the plaintiff that the purchaser would be supplied liquor from respective ware houses in any quantity that would be desired by them and that no limit for maximum supply was prescribed. They assured that the State would supply liquor upto any quantity that the contractor might require. Relying on and induced by their representations and assurances the plaintiff purchased the right to sell liquor in the above auction. In the terms and conditions of the auction under which the shops were auctioned, the defendant through its representatives and employees was to supply country liquor at prices mentioned in the licence, as and when required by the plaintiff, for the said shop. In the above terms and conditions the defendant promised and undertook to give regular and adequate supply of liquor to the plaintiff so that he might fulfil the demands of his customers and earn reasonable profits from them. On this promise and undertaking the plaintiff purchased the above right to sell liquor.

( 3. ) IT is further averred in the plaint that the defendant made regular supply for some period but after that, supplies became irregular, insufficient and unsatisfactory during the remaining period. The case of the plaintiff, therefore, as laid in paragraph 7 of the plaint is that the defendant committed breach of the promise and undertaking referred to above and that the defend-dent had further persuaded the contractor to continue the contract by announcing certain immediate relief of interim nature. The extracts of the circular are reproduced in that paragraph. The plaintiff has, therefore, claimed compensation for breach of the contract.

( 4. ) IT is urged by the learned Deputy Advocate General that section 68 applies where an act is done in pursuance of the Excise Act and emphasizes that the Expression "in pursuance of" is of wider import than the words-under the Act". On that basis he distinguished the following cases which were relied on by the learned Additional District Judge : K, L. Niyogi and Co. v. District council, Buldana (AIR 1930 Nag. 179.) District Council, Wardha,through Dr. H. M. Hassan v. Anna daulatrao Kunbi (1941 NLJ 371=air 1941 Nag. 273.) Bansidhar Kattulal (Firm) v. M. C. Jubbulpore (1945 NLJ SN 205.) and Bhaiyalal Pannalal v. Municipal Committee, Murwara (1958 MPLJ 251.) It is urged that the Excise Act not only contemplates issuance of licence but prohibits sale of liquor by any person except one who holds a licence from the Government, The contention, therefore, is that since the Act empowers licence to be granted and the licence was in fact issued to the plaintiff, his suit is in respect of something done in pursuance of the Act. That being so, as the suit was not instituted within six months from the date of non-suppl