This is an appeal by the Secretary, Municipal Committee, Sagar, against the decree for money (Rs. 17,246-5-0) passed by the Court of the Additional District Judge, Sagar, in Civil Suit No. 3-A of 1949.

The Plaintiff-respondent is a firm styled "Messrs. Vrajlal Manilal and Company, Sagar". It deals in the manufacture of bidis and for that purpose imports tabacco within the limits of Sagar Municipal Committee. On 18th November 1946, the Plaintiff-firm addressed a communication to the Secretary of the Municipal Committee urging against the collection of octroi duty. At that time, the suit filed by firm Ramkrishna Ramnath of Kamptee against the Municipal Committee of that place, in which imposition of octroi duty on tobacco was challenged, was pending. The Plaintiff-firm prayed that the collection of octroi duty be deferred until the decision in that suit. The Plaintiff-firm was agreeable to declare the goods and it did so every time the tobacoo was brought into the octroi limits.

On 2nd December 1946, the Municipal Committee resolved that Octroi duty be demanded and action under Section 80 of the Municipalities Act be taken upon refusal of payment. However, on account of the provisions of the Central Excise Act, the President thought that the Committee was powerless to seize the goods. Accordingly on 10th January 1947, he ordered recovery of double duty under Rule 17 (b) of the Rules framed under Section 150 (2), Clause (a), of the C.P. Municipal Act, 1903, which are still in force and govern the collection of octroi duty within the limits of the Sagar Municipal Committee.

On 11th February 1947, the replies of tobacco merchants to the notice of demand were placed before the Finance Sub-Committee which resolved that double duty should be recovered. This resolution was approved by the Central Committee on 27th February 1947. No action, however, was taken for recovery of the double duty on this resolution.

On 25th April 1947, the Plaintiff-firm instituted Civil Suit No. 4-A of 1947 for declaration that the levy of octroi duty on tobacco was invalid and for an injunction to restrain the Municipal Committee from recovering it. This suit was dismissed on 13th December 1947. Thereafter the Plaintiff-firm wrote to the Municipal Committee on 10th January 1948 that it was prepared to pay the arrears but there was no reason for payment of double duty. On 16-1-1948 the Secretary of the Municipal Committee asked the Plaintiff-firm to pay single duty as directed by the President, stating that if the money was paid within four days, the question of remitting the double duty would be placed before the General Committee. The sum due, that is, Rs. 17,246-4-10, was paid by the Plaintiff-firm in full on the same day. The question of recovering the double duty was brought before the ordinary meeting of the Municipal Committee on 27th February 1948, but was postponed on that date. At the next ordinary meeting held on 27th March 1948, the Committee resolved not to recover the double duty.

On 26th April 1948, one Premnarayan Gautam made an application to the Deputy Commissioner, Sagar, challenging the proceedings of the meeting of the Municipal Committee held on 29th March 1948. The Provincial Government there upon addressed a letter to the Deputy Commissioner, Sagar, on 27th May 1949 declaring that the former resolution of the Municipal Committee demanding double duty would have to be given effect to. In pursuance of this communication, a demand, on the order of the President, was made by the Secretary of the Municipal Committee on 21st July 1949 for recovery of the double duty. The Plaintiff-firm thereafter instituted the present suit on 18-8-1949 for an injunction to restrain the Committee from recovering the amount. However, on 21st August 1949 it paid the amount of Rs. 17,246-5-0 due on account of the double duty, and on 31st October 1949 made an application to the Court for amending the plaint by claiming the recovery of this amount. Subsequent