JUDGMENT Henderson, J. - This suit, which is of a somewhat novel character, was filed on the 6th December 1898 to recover Rs. 7,350 as damages from the Corporation of Calcutta. The plaint is not very artistically drawn and it is not quite clear from it what the real nature of the cause of action is, but at the request of the Defendant Corporation the Plaintiffs on the 27th January 1899, before the written statement was filed, furnished the particulars of their claim, so that it cannot be said that the Defendant Corporation has been at all taken by surprise or have not had an opportunity of meeting the case made before me. 2. The case set out in the plaint is that on the 17th June 1897 the Defendant Corporation granted sanction upon certain plans submitted to the Plaintiffs to erect a soorkey and flour mill and the necessary sheds at No. 102 Amherst Street, after the site had been duly inspected and approved by the officers of the Health, Roads and Buildings Departments; such sanction being granted upon the undertaking of the Plaintiffs to acquire a certain hut on the west side of the proposed engine-house and within 25 feet from it. That the sanction being granted the Plaintiffs proceeded at great expense with the erection of the engine and soorkey mill; that the Defendant Corporation by a letter dated the 15th August 1897 directed the Plaintiffs not to proceed with the completion of the work until all huts within 100 feet from the engine-house had been removed and it is submitted in the plaint that the Defendant Corporation had no right in derogation of the sanction granted to interfere with the work of construction. Next it is alleged that on the 10th September 1897 the Defendant Corporation wrongfully withdrew the sanction, the Plaintiffs having in the meantime since the 15th August, to meet the wishes of the Corporation and to avoid friction, taken various steps, which they were not bound to take. Next it is alleged that on the 10th September 1897 the Defendant Corporation wrongfully withdrew the sanction, the Plaintiffs having in the meantime since the 15th August, to meet the wishes of the Corporation and to avoid friction, taken various steps, which they were not bound to take. The plaint then goes on to state that two prosecutions were ordered against the Plaintiff Rajendro Nath Sanyal, (1) u/s 249 of Act II (B.C.) of 1888 for constructing a tiled shed without approval of the Commissioners between the 14th October and 5th November 1897 and (2) under Bye-law No. 9, Sub-section 3 of Section 417 of the same Act for constructing a tiled shed, not in accordance with the plan sanctioned and approved of by the Commissioner from 14th October to 15th November 1897, which prosecutions both failed, having been dismissed on the 6th September 1898. In the 9th paragraph of the plaint it is alleged that the Plaintiffs incurred heavy costs and expenses and suffered serious damage owing to these prosecutions and owing to the wrongful withdrawal of the sanction and in the 11th paragraph it is said that the cause of action is continuous and arises from day to day. Under these circumstances the Plaintiffs claimed Rs. 7,350 by way of damages and they further prayed that the order for the withdrawal of the sanction might be declared invalid and if necessary, set aside and for an injunction. 3. The following are the particulars of the claim of the Plaintiffs furnished on the 27th January 1899: (1) Depreciation in the value of machinery Rs. 1,600 (2) Rents and taxes for 15 months from September 1897 to December 1898 ... 1,200 (3) (4) Establishment charges for the same period... Expenses incurred for defending the criminal 1,725 prosecutions 200 (5) Amount of loss for the Plaintiffs being unable to work at their mill by reason of the withdrawal of the sanction ... 3,500 Rupees 8,225 4. A note was appended to the statement of particulars that the amounts claimed would continue to be increased day by day in consequence of the non-working of the mill. 5. On the 8th September 1898 the Plaintiffs u/s 427 of Act II (B.C.) of 1888 served the Defendant Corporation with a notice of their claim. 3,500 Rupees 8,225 4. A note was appended to the statement of particulars that the amounts claimed would continue to be increased day by day in consequence of the non-working of the mill. 5. On the 8th September 1898 the Plaintiffs u/s 427 of Act II (B.C.) of 1888 served the Defendant Corporation with a notice of their claim. The notice which is dated the 7th September 1898 sets forth the claim of the Plaintiffs somewhat more specifically than the plaint itself does. 6. The case for the defence is, shortly, that the Plaintiffs, as a condition upon which the sanction was granted, undertook to remove all huts within a 100 feet radius of the intended site of the engine-house, or that they gave an assurance that they would do so and that they had not complied with the undertaking or acted up to the assurance. That case, however, is not supported by the only oral testimony put forward by the Defendant Corporation at the trial. 7. In the third paragraph of the written statement it was alleged that on the 14th June 1897 one Mon Mohun Ghose, an Assistant in the Health Department of the Defendant Corporation, by appointment, met the Plaintiff Rajendro Nath Sanyal at 102 Amherst Street and was there told by him that he would buy all huts within 100 feet distance of the engine-house, but of this interview and the alleged statement made by the Plaintiff Rajendro Nath Sanyal there is no evidence, Mon Mohun Ghose not having been called as a witness. It is true that there is a report by some one in the Health Department that the Applicant for sanction had told him verbally that he was going to purchase huts within 20 feet of dwelling-huts and recommending that the Applicant should be told to purchase those huts first and have a clear space of 100 feet all round the engine-house and the boiler. There is nothing to show that this report was shown to Rajendro Nath Sanyal. On the same day the late Health Officer, Dr. Simpson, made a note (Ex. There is nothing to show that this report was shown to Rajendro Nath Sanyal. On the same day the late Health Officer, Dr. Simpson, made a note (Ex. 7a) as follows : "Proper access and space of 100 feet, from dwelling-huts must be insisted on," and apparently on the 16th June further report was called for from the overseer Khirendro Nath Gangooly, who on the 17th June 1897 made the following report : "Only the hut on the west side will be within 100 feet of the proposed engine-house. The Applicant undertakes to acquire this hut for godown and to metal the road. His letter of undertaking attached herewith. I think this may be sanctioned." On that condition (Ex. E in No. 7) sanction was accordingly granted on the 17th June 1897. 8. The letter of undertaking (Ex. D) was as follows: We hereby undertake to acquire and occupy the western tiled hut which is within twenty feet of the engine-house in compliance with the conditions proposed in the order of the Health officer. Hoping that an immediate order granting us the sanction to set up the mills will be given. We also undertake to metal the passage to the mill. 9. But in the 7th paragraph of its written statement the Defendant Corporation alleges that the sanction was granted "upon the understanding that there would be no dwelling huts within 100 feet distance of the proposed mill." 10. The main question in the case is as to the circumstances under which the sanction was granted. As to this the evidence on behalf of the Plaintiffs is not as full as it might have been, as the Plaintiff Rajendro Nath Sanyal, through whom the negotiations for the sanction were carried through, has not been called and neither the Plaintiff Tullaram nor his witnesses are able to throw much, if any, light on the matter. It is said that Rajendro Nath Sanyal cannot be found; that search has been made for him in Calcutta and elsewhere, bat he cannot be traced. 11. Before referring to the evidence as to how the sanction came to be granted, it is necessary to refer to another matter. It appears that the Plaintiffs have a soorkey mill in Tewari Bagan and they found it necessary to acquire other premises for the mill. They first applied for sanction to erect it in Machooa Bazar. 11. Before referring to the evidence as to how the sanction came to be granted, it is necessary to refer to another matter. It appears that the Plaintiffs have a soorkey mill in Tewari Bagan and they found it necessary to acquire other premises for the mill. They first applied for sanction to erect it in Machooa Bazar. This was in April 1897. The application was rejected and the Plaintiffs were informed on the 21st May that sanction was refused on the ground that a mill could not be erected within a distance of 100 feet from dwelling-houses or 50 feet from a road. It is contended that the Plaintiffs were thus made aware of the terms upon which only applications for sanction would be granted by the Corporation and it is said that with this knowledge they applied for sanction in respect of the premises No. 102 Amherst Street. I am not prepared to adopt this contention. The Municipal Act apparently draws a distinction between dwelling-houses and huts. It might well he that, finding objections to the erection of the mill at Machooa Bazar, where there were "dwelling-houses" within 100 feet, the Plaintiffs turned their attention to the premises No. 102 Amherst Street, where admittedly there were only huts. The overseer himself appears (vide Ex. No. 7b) to have thought that the sanction in respect of Machooa Bazar was refused for the erection of the mill at Machooa Bazar because the residents of the locality objected and not because the mill would have been within a radius of 100 feet from dwelling-houses. 12. Endeavours were made to show that there was a rule or practice of the Corporation to insist upon a 100 feet radius in cases such as this, but the witness, who spoke of this, failed to prove any such rule or practice. He said he knew of only one instance before the present case in which such radius was insisted upon and that was a case in Strand Road and it does not appear whether that was a case of dwelling-houses or huts. 13. The application in respect of No. 102 Amherst Street was made on the 5th June 1897 and a map or plan of the site was submitted with the application. 13. The application in respect of No. 102 Amherst Street was made on the 5th June 1897 and a map or plan of the site was submitted with the application. I have already referred to some of the orders which were made by various officers upon the application, but there is nothing in the orders themselves to show that any of these officers had previously visited the site before passing these orders. 14. In due course the application was submitted to Khirendro Nath Gangooly, the overseer, Roads and Building Department. In his evidence he stated that he then went with the Plaintiff Rajendro Nath Sanyal to No. 102 Amherst Street, examined the surrounding huts and told him that some of them were within 100 feet of the proposed engine-house and that the Health Department would not allow that. To this the Plaintiff Rajendro Nath Sanyal said nothing then. Further he said he told him that the application would have to be submitted to the Health Department first and this was in fact done (in Exhibit 7a). Four or five days afterwards, when the opinion or report of the Health Department had been given and submitted, the Plaintiff Rajendro Nath is said to have gone again to see the overseer. Khirendro Nath Gangooly stated that he then again accompanied, him to No. 102 Amherst Street and on this occasion he professes to have measured the distances from the engine-house of the huts or of many of them which were within 100 feet and enquired (and this is very important) if they had been acquired as the Plaintiff Rajendro Nath had previously stated they had been and that the Plaintiff informed him that he had acquired all the huts within 100 feet, except one on the west within 25 feet of the engine-house and that for that hut he was then negotiating. Gangooly's evidence therefore is not that the Plaintiff Rajendro Nath Sanyal stated that the huts other than the hut to the west within 25 feet were then being acquired, but that they had been acquired. This evidence is hardly consistent with statements made by the witness in various documents, which have been put in evidence and to which reference will be made hereafter. This evidence is hardly consistent with statements made by the witness in various documents, which have been put in evidence and to which reference will be made hereafter. On the same day the witness stated the Plaintiff Rajendro Nath Sanyal came and saw him again at his office and pressed him to have the matter of the sanction put through at once. Gangooly stated that he told him that, unless the huts within 100 feet from the engine-house were removed, sanction would not be granted; upon which the Plaintiff Rajendro Nath Sanyal said that, if he would recommend the sanction being granted, he would give a letter of undertaking and that he thereupon wrote out the letter of undertaking (Exhibit D), which has already been set out. 15. It is to be observed that the undertaking has reference to one hut only--a hut on the west within 25 feet of the engine-house and this undertaking is said to be "in compliance with the conditions proposed by the Health Office," that is to say, as the witness Gangooly said in his evidence, in compliance with the note of the Health Officer, Dr. Simpson (Exhibit 7a), which note the witness said was shown to Rajendra at this interview before the letter of undertaking was written out. On being asked why he had taken the undertaking in this limited form, none of the huts having then been removed, Gangooly stated that it was because the Applicant had said that all the huts within 100 feet had been acquired. On the assumption that such a statement had been made by the Applicant the acceptance of the undertaking in that form is intelligible, but still one would have (expected some reference to have been made in the letter to the fact that the existing huts within 100 feet, other than the western hut close by the engine-house, had been acquired. On the assumption that such a statement had been made by the Applicant the acceptance of the undertaking in that form is intelligible, but still one would have (expected some reference to have been made in the letter to the fact that the existing huts within 100 feet, other than the western hut close by the engine-house, had been acquired. If, however, there had been an undertaking to remove all huts within 100 feet or an assurance by the Plaintiff Rajendro Nath Sanyal as alleged in the written statement, that they were being acquired and would be removed, it is difficult to understand why the full undertaking was not embodied in the letter or a reference made in it to the assurance alleged to have been given, so that it might appear that the conditions of the order of the Health Office were fully complied with. Assuming for the moment that the evidence of the witness Gangooly in this connection is true, the omission to have any reference in the letter of undertaking to the other huts within the 100 feet radius is the more remarkable when we consider a further statement made by the witness that the Plaintiff Rajendro Nath Sanyal informed him that some of the huts would be removed and the others used as godowns. It would have been natural to have insisted upon some undertaking to ensure that the huts would in fact be removed, or at all events that the residents would not be allowed to remain. 16. So far I have dealt with the evidence as to the circumstances which led up to the granting of the sanction. The conclusions to be drawn from that evidence will be dealt with later when certain other matters have been referred to. 17. After the sanction had been granted as has been proved, the work of erecting the engine and soorkey mill was proceeded with and the Plaintiffs in accordance with the letter of undertaking of the 17th June 1897, took steps to acquire the hut to the west within 25 feet of the engine-house. While the work was proceeding, it appears that complaints began to be made to the Corporation by the Superintendent of the Calcutta Alms House and the residents of the adjoining bustee. Gangooly was called upon to furnish a report. While the work was proceeding, it appears that complaints began to be made to the Corporation by the Superintendent of the Calcutta Alms House and the residents of the adjoining bustee. Gangooly was called upon to furnish a report. His report, dated the 15th July 1897, (Exhibit T) is as follows: The Health Officer's Department did not find any objection, provided the engine-house and boiler are 100 feet away from the surrounding huts and that the road leading to the mill is properly installed. The party gave a letter of undertaking to the effect that he will properly metal the road and acquire the huts falling within 100 feet. Consequently sanction for the hut was granted on that condition. 18. Here there is no suggestion that apart from the letter of undertaking there had been any verbal undertaking or assurance with regard to any huts other than the hut within 25 feet of the engine-house. 19. So far from there being any such suggestion, this report incorrectly refers to the letter of undertaking as having reference not to a hut, but to huts falling within 100 feet. The reference is apparently deliberate, as the word huts was originally written hut, for it is clear that the letter "s" has been subsequently added, so as to make it appear that the undertaking had reference to all the huts. The significance, however, of this report to my mind is, that not a word is said in it to the effect that the Plaintiff Rajendro Nath Sanyal had previously to the obtaining of sanction alleged that he had acquired all the huts except one within the 100 feet radius. Gangooly was unable to give any explanation as to this. On the 26th July he reported to his Superintendent that "the Plaintiff Rajendro Nath Sanyal says he will build in accordance with the terms of the sanction," again no reference being made to the alleged previous acquisition of the huts. On the 4th August he reported : "He (i.e., the Plaintiff Rajendro Nath Sanyal) has metalled the passage. As regards huts falling within 100 feet of the mill, he says, he is making arrangements for acquiring them" (Exhibit Z 2). On the following day Gangooly's Superintendent, Mr. On the 4th August he reported : "He (i.e., the Plaintiff Rajendro Nath Sanyal) has metalled the passage. As regards huts falling within 100 feet of the mill, he says, he is making arrangements for acquiring them" (Exhibit Z 2). On the following day Gangooly's Superintendent, Mr. O'Flaherty, writing to the Secretary, apparently with reference to the letter of undertaking, stated that "the hut has been removed and will be used for the storage of building material, not as dwelling. The road has been metalled, so H. O.'s (i.e., Health Office) objections have been removed" (Exhibit Z 3). 20. Mr. O'Flaherty had previously given orders (Exhibit T) that, unless the hut was removed and the road metalled forthwith, the sanction would be withdrawn and the mill demolished, showing that he knew of no undertaking or assurance with reference to any huts, except the but within 25 feet, although Gangooly in his evidence stated that he had informed him verbally that the Plaintiff Rajendro Nath had said he had, previous to the sanction, acquired all the huts except that hut. Gangooly's report of the 26th July is hardly consistent with his statement that Rajendro Nath had originally alleged that he actually acquired all the huts (save one) within 100 feet. 21. Up to the 5th August, therefore, it does not appear that Gangooly represented to his superior officer that the Plaintiff Rajendro Nath had said that he had acquired the huts within the 100 feet radius. This suggestion in the report of the 4th August is that he had subsequently said he was acquiring them. 22. On the 13th August Mr. Hughes, the then Chief Engineer visited the locality and on the same day the Plaintiff Rajendro Nath Sanyal was informed by a letter from the Assistant Engineer that he must not proceed with the building, until the huts within 100 feet all round were removed. Complaints still continuing to be made, Mr. Bright, the Chairman, on the 8th September, went to No. 102, Amherst Street and made a note, (Exhibit 9) which is set out in the 13th paragraph of the written statement. In his note he stated that the sanction appeared to have been obtained by a suppressio veri of the overseer (Gangooly), who reports that "only one hut on the west will be within 100 feet of the proposed engine-house. In his note he stated that the sanction appeared to have been obtained by a suppressio veri of the overseer (Gangooly), who reports that "only one hut on the west will be within 100 feet of the proposed engine-house. He entirely omits to notice that there are a number of huts within that distance on the north-west and south of the place." He directed the sanction to be withdrawn and ordered the overseer to be suspended at once and if he could not give a proper explanation, to be dismissed. 23. In his explanation (Exhibit AA) Gangooly stated that he frankly admitted that he did not make a careful examination of the site, relying upon the assurance of the owner that all huts within 100 feet would be removed before the mill was started. His explanation was not considered satisfactory, but the statement that the owner had given an assurance that all huts would be removed does not agree with his evidence. His evidence is that the owner stated that he had acquired the huts and that he had verified the statement by making enquiries of the residents. I have no doubt that the story now put forward by Gangooly that the Plaintiff Rajendro Nath assured him that he had acquired all the huts, except one, within the 100 feet radius, is an afterthought. In his evidence Gangooly stated that up to the 24th August 1897 he had never told any one in writing that an undertaking had been given to acquire all the huts, or that the Plaintiff Rajendro Nath Sanyal had said all the huts had been acquired. We have only his word for it that any such undertaking was given or statement made. If he is now speaking the truth, we should have expected some reference to this matter to have been made in his earlier notes. Even his explanation to the Chairman puts forward a somewhat different version. 24. There is nothing to shew collusion between the Plaintiff Rajendro Nath Sanyal and Gangooly. The former, as I have already mentioned, has not given evidence, but Gangooly's evidence negatives any such collusion. Had a case of fraud or collusion on the part of the Plaintiff been proved in connection with the obtaining of the sanction, the suit would of course fail, but no such ease has been made. 25. The former, as I have already mentioned, has not given evidence, but Gangooly's evidence negatives any such collusion. Had a case of fraud or collusion on the part of the Plaintiff been proved in connection with the obtaining of the sanction, the suit would of course fail, but no such ease has been made. 25. In arriving at a conclusion as to the circumstances under which the sanction was obtained, I preferred to rely on the report made by Gangooly himself recommending the granting of sanction and the actual letter of undertaking given by the Plaintiff Rajendro Nath Sanyal, rather than upon the evidence of Gangooly at the trial or upon the statements made by him subsequently. I find that the sanction was given upon the undertaking in the letter of the 17th June 1897 (Exhibit D) and upon no other undertaking or assurance prior to the sanction being given and further, that the sanction was given after the premises had been duly inspected on behalf of the Corporation by its responsible officer, the overseer of the Roads and Buildings Department. 26. The Corporation must be taken to be bound by the acts of its officers. It is not entitled to turn round and say that it was misled by the overseer or that the overseer made a mistake and that the sanction upon the faith of which the Plaintiffs had commenced the erection of a mill and spent a considerable sum of money is not binding. 27. It has been contended that the sanction was a conditional one, regard being had to the undertaking. In its terms the sanction is absolute, but the Corporation doubtless would have been able to enforce the undertaking (whatever it might be), if it were not carried out. This, however, was not the course adopted. It purported to revoke the sanction on the 10th September 1897 and then proceeded to do everything in its power to prevent the work of completing the erection of the mill shed. Threats were made from time to time to demolish the mill, suggestions were thrown out to call in the police to see the work was not begun again and finally two prosecutions--one on the basis of a subsisting sanction and the other on the basis of there being no sanction--were started, the natural effect of which was to stop all work. 28. 28. The sanction was not revoked upon the ground that the undertaking to acquire the hut within 25 feet of the engine-house was not complied with. No time, it is to be observed, was stated in the letter of undertaking (Exhibit D) for the acquisition of that hut, but it appears according to the evidence to have been acquired in September 1897, within what appears to me to be a reasonable time. The sanction was revoked or withdrawn, because the Plaintiffs had not acquired or removed all huts within a radius of 100 feet from the engine-house--a thing which, as I have found, they had not undertaken to do. 29. On the 10th September 1897, apparently before the withdrawal of the sanction, the Plaintiff Rajendro Nath had written (Exhibit No. 1) to the Corporation pointing out that his undertaking was only as to one hut, but expressing his willingness to acquire others, if time were given and again on the 12th November 1897 he wrote (Exhibit No. 3) that he had contracted to buy other huts. It is clear therefore that the Plaintiffs were anxious, if possible, to prevent friction and were prepared to do more than they had undertaken. 30. That the Plaintiffs suffered damage owing to the action of the Corporation, there can be no doubt. After the sanction had been granted, they took a lease of the premises on the 28th September 1897 as from the 18th July 1897, they erected the engine chimney, built the seat of the engine, laid down the boilers, put up the soorkey mill and did other work on the premises. They were actually stopped in building the shed to cover the engine and mill during the rains before the sanction was withdrawn. They also spent money in acquiring the hut within 25 feet of the engine-house. 31. It is contended that the suit is barred by the special limitation provided by Section 427 of Act II (B.C.) of 1888. It is said that the withdrawal of the sanction is a thing done or purporting to be done under that Act. The granting of the sanction undoubtedly was a thing done or purporting to be done u/s 247 of the Act. Under that section the Commissioners had power to approve or disapprove of the proposed building. It is said that the withdrawal of the sanction is a thing done or purporting to be done under that Act. The granting of the sanction undoubtedly was a thing done or purporting to be done u/s 247 of the Act. Under that section the Commissioners had power to approve or disapprove of the proposed building. But it is contended that having been misled by the overseer, whose duty it was to make enquiries and report whether sanction should be granted, the Commissioners had a right under the same section to withdraw the sanction given upon his report, if upon a full knowledge of the facts they might have disapproved of the proposed building. I am unable to accept this view of the law. There is nothing in Section 247 which enables the Commissioners to withdraw a sanction once given. If the Corporation was right in the view which it put forward that the undertaking of the Plaintiffs had not been complied with, it had its remedy at law to compel compliance with the undertaking whatever it was. 32. In connection with this matter reference may be made to Section 250 of the Act. Under that section, if the Commissioners fail u/s 247 to pass orders within a fortnight, then the person applying for permission to build may proceed to build. In my opinion the right of the person so applying becomes absolute. The Commissioners could not be heard to say that the failure of the Commissioners to pass orders had been due to oversight, mistake, or some other like cause, nor be allowed to take steps to prevent the building proceeding. So where sanction is once given, I can find nothing in the Act, which enables the Corporation to revoke or withdraw it. 33. Mr. So where sanction is once given, I can find nothing in the Act, which enables the Corporation to revoke or withdraw it. 33. Mr. Pugh has contended that the application for sanction, the letter of undertaking (Exhibit D) and the letter granting the sanction, taken together, amount to a contract by the Corporation to permit the building to be erected and that the withdrawal of the permission, accompanied or followed as it was by various other acts on the part of the Corporation, was a breach of the contract and a continuing cause of action and on that basis he argued that Section 427 of Act II (B.C.) of 1888 can have no application and he has referred me to two cases decided by the Bombay High Court--Municipality of Parola v. Lakshman Das ILR (1900) Bom. 142 and Ranchordas Moorarji v. The Municipal Commissioner for the City of Bombay ILR (1901) Bom. 387. If the letter granting sanction, taken with the undertaking, be viewed in the light of a contract to permit the erection of the mill, the action of the Defendant Corporation in breach of the contract cannot, in my opinion, be treated as anything done or purporting to be done under the Act. The Defendant Corporation withdrew the sanction and interfered with the erection of the mill, because it considered that the Plaintiffs had not complied with what it believed was their undertaking and I have no doubt that its interference was bona fide, but its proper remedy was to have taken legal steps by injunction or otherwise to enforce the undertaking. But whether the sanction amounted to a contract by the Defendant Corporation or not I consider the withdrawal of the sanction was not done under the Act, nor did it purport to have been done under the Act and therefore, so far as the suit is based upon the withdrawal of the sanction, the special limitation u/s 427 does not apply. So far as the suit may be treated as based upon the prosecutions instituted by the Defendant Corporation, it would appear that both prosecutions were instituted under the Act and the claim based upon these prosecutions is therefore not barred--notice of the Plaintiffs claim having been served upon the Defendant Corporation on the 7th or 8th September 1898, that is, immediately after the dismissal of the prosecutions and the suit filed on the 6th December 1898. 34. I have found that the sanction granted was not conditional, but absolute, that the Defendant Corporation was not competent to withdraw or revoke it and I find that having purported to withdraw or revoke the sanction, the Corporation was not justified in taking the various steps, which it did, to prevent the Plaintiffs going on with the erection and working of the mill. I have also found that no part of the claim is barred by limitation. It only remains to determine what relief the Plaintiffs are, on the facts proved, entitled to. 35. I have drawn attention to the 9th paragraph of the plaint in which the Plaintiffs allege "that they have incurred heavy costs and expenses and suffered serious damage owing to the two prosecutions and owing to the wrongful withdrawal of the sanction." 36. The costs and expenses of the prosecutions, which were only of one of the Plaintiffs, are said to amount to Rs. 200, but Mr. Pugh does not press for this sum. So far as damages are sought for in consequence of those prosecutions they are not claimed as damages for malicious prosecution and if necessary, I should have been prepared to hold that the prosecutions were instituted and carried through in perfect good faith. The particulars of the Plaintiff's claim were furnished to the Defendant Corporation on the 27th January 1899 before the written statement was filed and I consider it would be inequitable under the circumstances to confine the claim strictly to the manner in which it is set forth in the 9th paragraph of the plaint. It is clear to my mind that the Plaintiffs really meant to claim the damages which they have suffered in consequence of the Defendant Corporation having prevented them erecting and working their mill, the prosecutions being only one of the methods by which the Corporation effected its object. It is clear to my mind that the Plaintiffs really meant to claim the damages which they have suffered in consequence of the Defendant Corporation having prevented them erecting and working their mill, the prosecutions being only one of the methods by which the Corporation effected its object. Having regard to the repeated threats of having their mill demolished and to the prosecution of the Plaintiff Rajendro Nath Sanyal, it cannot be said that the Plaintiffs were not effectually prevented from erecting the mill, up to the time that the prosecutions ended in dismissal. 37. The relief claimed, whether it be claimed according to on contention put forward by the Plaintiffs as damages arising out of a breach of contract by the Corporation or in consequence of the wrongful acts of the Defendant Corporation, is sufficiently, I think, indicated by the plaint, hut if not, the Defendant Corporation could not be embarrassed in their defence, as it had full notice of the manner in which the claim was made up in the particulars which were furnished before the written statement was filed. 38. In my opinion the Plaintiffs are entitled to such damages as they may be able to prove under the various heads set forth in the particulars of claim except as to the sum of Rs. 200, the expenses of defending the criminal prosecutions. The Plaintiffs appear to have proceeded with the erection of the mill on the prosecutions being dismissed. There will be a reference to the Assistant Referee to ascertain what damages the Plaintiffs have sustained under the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 5th heads set out in the particulars of claim. The Defendants must pay the Plaintiffs' costs of the hearing on scale No. 2. Costs of the reference will abide the result.