This is an appeal filed by the defendants in Money Suit No. 10 of 1958 on the file of the Sub-Judge, Tripura, against the judgment and dec­ree for a sum of Rs. 11.126/6/- with pro­portionate costs towards the price of and subsidy for 418 bags of salt. 2. The case of the respondent is that salt was one of the essential commodi­ties, required to be imported to the Tri­pura by air from Calcutta. The respon­dent carried on business as a dealer in salt. The first appellant represented by the Civil Supply Department. Tripura, issued a permit No. 9160-65/S/28-1, dated 6-2-1951, under the Tripura Essential Commodities Air Movement Order of 1950 in favour of the respondent for im­porting 2000 bags of salt from Calcutta to Kailasahar, Tripura for the purpose of sale of the same to the consumers and members of the public in Kailasahar. The second appellant was the Divisional Officer in Kailasahar in charge of Civil Supplies Department and was also the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Kailasahar at that time. The first appellant had to fix the price of the salt. The respondent booked 2000 bags of salt with M/S. Tri­pura Air Ways for air-lifting the same from Calcutta to Kaliasahar. The res­pondent produced the consignment notes before the Divisional Officer, Kailasahar. Thereafter the price of salt both for re­tail and for wholesale was fixed by the first appellant by an order dated 9-3-1951. The first appellant also by the same order agreed to pay and fix the rate of subsidy payable to the respon­dent in respect of the said air-lifted goods. Out of the said 2000 bags of salt, the respondent obtained part delivery of 450 bags which were sold in due course. He received the subsidy and price for the same. 3. It is also the case of the respon­dent that on or about 1-1-1952 he ob­tained delivery of another consignment of 504 bags of salt from M/S. Tripura Air Ways. But, they were illegally and wrongfully seized by the police on ac­count of some alleged dispute between M/S. Tripura Air Ways and its principal M/S. Bharat Air Ways which filed a cri­minal case against Captain Das Gupta, the agent of M/S. Tripura Air Ways. The respondent had nothing to do with the criminal case. The respondent was to sell the said 504 bags of salt in Kailasahar. The respondent had nothing to do with the criminal case. The respondent was to sell the said 504 bags of salt in Kailasahar. But, the appellant refused to re­lease the goods in favour of the respon­dent. Instead, the second appellant pass­ed an order directing that the goods should be sold by public auction and that the sale proceeds should be depo­sited in the Government Treasury. On or about 3-1-1955 the criminal case was dismissed. An order was passed that the sale proceeds should be paid to the per­son from whose custody the goods were seized. On or about 11-2-1955 the res­pondent received payment of Rs. 4000/-being the said sale proceeds. As a re­sult of wrongful seizure and detention the respondent sustained loss of Rs. 3560/- towards the price of the salt and Rs. 10,678/8-7 towards subsidy. So, he filed the suit for recovery of Rs. 14,238-8. 4. Both the appellants filed joint writ" ten statement alleging inter alia that per­mit No. 9160-65/S/28-1, dated 6-2-1951, was issued by the Director of Civil Sup­plies to the respondent for air-lifting 2000 bags of salt from Calcutta to Kailasahar for sale to the authorised retailers at Kai­lasahar on production of coupons granted to them by the Civil Supplies Department at the rate fixed by it for which he would be entitled to get subsidy at the rate fixed by the Government. However, the conditions, on fulfilment of which the respondent permit-holder was entitled to get the subsidy according to sub-paras (a) to (d) in para 26 were not complied with. They were, firstly, on arrival of the goods, he should take delivery of the same and keep them in his godown. He should make an entry of the arrival of the goods in the stock register maintained by him. He should then submit the arrival re­port with the relevant consignment note of the Air Company to the office of the Divisional Officer concerned. Secondly, on receiving the aforesaid report, the office of the Divisional Officer concern­ed would send an officer for verification of the said report. After physical veri­fication he would certify to that effect on the stock register. Thirdly, the res­pondent permit-holder would then sell the goods at the rate fixed by the Direc­tor of Civil Supplies to the authorised re­tailers on production of coupons issued to them by the Civil Supplies Depart­ment. After physical veri­fication he would certify to that effect on the stock register. Thirdly, the res­pondent permit-holder would then sell the goods at the rate fixed by the Direc­tor of Civil Supplies to the authorised re­tailers on production of coupons issued to them by the Civil Supplies Depart­ment. Fourthly, the respondent permit-holder should then submit the bill for payment of subsidy to the office of the Divisional Officer concerned. The Divi­sional Officer would then certify on the body of the bill to the effect that the terms and conditions above had been fulfilled and then forward the bill to the office of the Director of Civil Supplies for payment. The appellants further alleged in their written statement that the respondent booked 600 bags of salt from Calcutta with Tripura Air Ways, an agent of M/S. Bharat Air Ways, on 20-2-1951 for air­lifting the same to Kailasahar, but that the respondent did not take delivery of the same, that on 1-1-1952 the officer-in-charge of Bharat Air Ways Ltd., Kaila­sahar sent information in writing to the officer-in-charge of the Kailasahar Police Station to the effect that one Captain Das Gupta, proprietor of Tripura Air Ways took away 504 bags of salt by force in that morning from his possession without paying air freight in his absence and re­quested the officer-in-charge of the Police Station to take necessary legal ac­tion, that the police seized 504 bags of salt, that the police, however, submitted a final report dropping the investigation, but that the complainant filed a "Naraji" petition in the Sub-Divisional Magistrate's Court, who took it on file in Criminal Case 96 Chh of 1952, that the 504 bags of salt were seized by the police in pursu­ance of the orders of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and kept in the custody of one Prafulla Sarker after taking proper security from him, that the trying Ma­gistrate ordered the salt to be sold in auction in accordance with the directions of this Court in Criminal Revision No. 8 of 1952, dated 6-9-1952, that the respon­dent filed a petition on 17-9-1952 for delivery of salt to him after taking pro­per security from him, that his petition was allowed, but that eventually he fail­ed to furnish security and take the salt. The appellants further state in their written statement that according to the order of Sub-Divisional Magistrate the salt was sold in auction for Rs. The appellants further state in their written statement that according to the order of Sub-Divisional Magistrate the salt was sold in auction for Rs. 4000/-, that on 3-1-1955 the Sub-Divisional Ma­gistrate discharged the accused, that the respondent withdrew the auction amount of Rs. 4000/- that thus it is clear that the salt was not brought to Kailasahas and sold there according to the terms and conditions, which would entitle the .respondent to claim the price and sub­sidy, that the suit was barred by limita­tion and that, therefore, his suit was liable to be dismissed. 5. On the above pleadings the learn­ed Sub-Judge framed the necessary Issues and held that the police seized 86 bags of salt from the godown of the respondent and the remaining 418 bags of salt from the air-strip at Kailasahar when they were in the possession of the respondent that though the Sub-Divi­sional Magistrate directed the respondent to furnish cash security of Rs. 3000 and take delivery of 86 bags of salt, he did not do so. that 'thus the procedure laid down in sub-paras (a) to (d) of para 26 of the written statement filed by the ap­pellants (mentioned above) was not fol­lowed by the respondent and that, there­fore, he was not entitled to get either the price or subsidy for 86 bags of salt. With regard to the remaining 418 bags of salt he held that though the Sub-Divisional Magistrate directed the res­pondent to take delivery of the same also after furnishing personal security bond for Rs. 9000 they were not released by the appellants in spite of the orders of the "Higher Court" and that, therefore, the appellants are liable to pay the res­pondent the price of and subsidy for the said 418 bags of salt at the rate claimed in the plaint. He negatived the conten­tion of the appellants that the suit was barred by limitation and held that it was covered by Article 120 of Schedule 1 of the Limitation Act (Act IX of 1908). So, he decreed the suit in part for Rs. 11.126/6/-towards the price of and subsidy for 418 bags of salt. Hence the appeal by the defendants. 6. The points which were argued and which arise for determination are: (i) Whether the respondent is not en­titled to the price of and subsidy for 418 bags of salt decreed by the Lower Court? 11.126/6/-towards the price of and subsidy for 418 bags of salt. Hence the appeal by the defendants. 6. The points which were argued and which arise for determination are: (i) Whether the respondent is not en­titled to the price of and subsidy for 418 bags of salt decreed by the Lower Court? (ii) Whether the suit is barred by Limi­tation? (iii) Whether the suit is not maintain­able against the appellants under Arti­cle 300 (1) of the Constitution of India? (iv) To what relief is the respondent entitled? 7. POINT (i):- The respondent P. W. 1 was a dealer in salt. He was issued a permit as per Ext. D-7, dated 6-2-1951, to airlift 2000 bags of salt from Calcutta to Kailasahar for sale in Kailasahar under the direc­tion of the Divisional Officer. Kailasahar under the Tripura Essential Commodi­ties Air Movement Order of 1950. The price was fixed as can be seen from Exts. P-l and D-6 dated 9-3-1951. It is common ground that P. W. 1 airlifted 450 bags of salt in the first instance out of the 2000 bags of salt, that the same were sold in Kailasahar and that P. W. 1 received payment of the price and subsidy for the same. On the next occasion he consign­ed 504 bags of salt to be airlifted from Calcutta to Kailasahar, as can be seen from Ext. P-3 consignment note through Tripura Air Ways. Tripura Air Ways was formerly an agent of Bharat Air Ways. The consignment was airlifted actually by Bharat Air Ways. Af­ter the consignment was unloaded and 86 bags of salt were removed by P. W. 1 to his godown, the officer-in-charge of Bharat Air Ways lodged a complaint with the police station alleg­ing that one Captain Das Gupta of Tri­pura Air Ways illegally removed all the salt bags and some more consignments from the possession of the Bharat Air Ways without paying freight of Rs. 16,180/14/6 pies and that the police should take action against him. Vide his re­port No. KIS/MISC-4/392 dated 1-1-1952. Accordingly the police registered a case under Section 380, Indian Penal Code and seized 86 bags of salt from the go-down of P. W. 1 as can be seen from Ext. P-4 and 418 bags of salt from his possession when they were on the air­strip in front of the Tripura Air Ways room in Kailasahar as can be seen from Ext. P-4 and 418 bags of salt from his possession when they were on the air­strip in front of the Tripura Air Ways room in Kailasahar as can be seen from Ext. P-5, dated 1-1-1952. (The dates mentioned therein viz., 1-1-1951 are mis­takes for 1-1-1952). But, after investi­gation the police submitted a final report dropping the investigation. The officer-in-charge of Bharat Air Ways, however, filed a petition on 30-4-1952 before the second appellant Sub-Divisional Magis­trate challenging the final report. The second appellant, who was then the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and also in-charge of the Civil Supply Department in Kailasahar, took the case on file in Criminal Case No. 96 Chh of 1952 and directed seizure of the 504 bags of salt again. They were accordingly seized and kept in the custody of one Prafulla Sarker. 8. On a petition filed by P. W. 1 on 17-9-1952 for delivery of the 504 bags of salt to him the second appellant, Sub-Divisional Magistrate, passed an order that P. W. 1 should furnish cash secu­rity of Rs. 3000 for the 86 bags of salt and personal security of Rs. 9000 for the remaining 418 bags of salt. But, P. W. 1 did not do so. In the meanwhile the criminal case was transferred by the District Magistrate to his own file. The complainant filed a revision petition before the District and Sessions Judge to set aside the order of transfer of the case. The District and Sessions Judge submitted references to this Court in Criminal motions 48 and 49 of 1952 to quash the order of the District Magis­trate. This Court passed orders as per Exts. D-l and D-2 dated 6-9-1952 cancel­ling the order of the District Magis­trate transferring the case to his file and directed the second appellant to pass ap­propriate orders as he deemed fit regard­ing the seized property without any un­reasonable delay. 9. But, the first respondent did not furnish either cash security for the 86 bags of salt or personal security of Rs. 9000 for the remaining bags of salt. P. W. 1 moved the Sessions Court in Cri­minal Motion 136 of 1952 to set aside the said order of the second appellant. The Sessions Judge made reference to this Court to set aside the second appel­lant's order regarding the 418 bags of salt. But, this Court rejected the refer­ence. Vide Exts. 9000 for the remaining bags of salt. P. W. 1 moved the Sessions Court in Cri­minal Motion 136 of 1952 to set aside the said order of the second appellant. The Sessions Judge made reference to this Court to set aside the second appel­lant's order regarding the 418 bags of salt. But, this Court rejected the refer­ence. Vide Exts. P-7 to P-9 and certi­fied copy of this Court's order dated 13-12-1952 'in Criminal Reference 29 of 1952. The salt was sold away in an open auction for Rs. 4000 and the amount was deposited in the Sub-Treasury which was withdrawn by P. W. 1. 10. The learned Sub-Judge held with regard to the 86 bags of salt that P. W. 1 did not furnish cash security of Rs. 3000 and obtained delivery of 86 bags of salt, though he was given an opportunity to take delivery of the same, that he did not follow the procedure mentioned In sub-paras (a) to (d) of para 26 of the written statement and that, therefore, he was not entitled to get the price of and subsidy for the same. His finding that all the 504 bags of salt were seized when they were in the possession of P. W. 1 is correct. For, Exts. P-4 and P-5 bear out the same. The allegation of the appellants that all of them were seized when they were in the possession of Tripura Air Ways is not correct. His fur­ther finding that the procedure laid down in sub-paras (a) to (d) of para 26 of written statement had to be followed be­fore P. W. 1 could claim the price of and subsidy for the salt is also correct. For, though D. W. 1 the solitary witness exa­mined by the appellants spoke to the above procedure to be followed, in the cross-examination, he admitted that he was not personally aware of the terms and conditions under which P. W. 1 air­lifted the salt from Calcutta to Kailasahar. So, his evidence is of no avail. The appellants should have examined the second appellant or somebody else who had personal know­ledge of the terms and conditions of the contract between the appellants and P. W. 1. So, his evidence is of no avail. The appellants should have examined the second appellant or somebody else who had personal know­ledge of the terms and conditions of the contract between the appellants and P. W. 1. But, however, P. W. 1 admitted in his cross-examination that after tak­ing delivery of the first consignment of 450 bags of salt, he reported to the Sub-Divisional Officer that he obtained deli­very of the same, that after he made the delivery report, he made entries of the same in the khatas of his shop and prepared consignment report, that then verification of the same was made by the office of the Sub-Divisional Officer, that he, submitted a bill after all the soft was sold away and that he got the price, and subsidy for the same. So, the proce­dure pleaded in sub-paras (a) to (d) of para 26 of the written statement of the appellants had to be followed, before P. W. 1 was entitled to draw the price of and subsidy for the 504 bags of salt. 11. The learned Sub-Judge held that as P. W. 1 did not take delivery of the salt after furnishing security and follow the procedure of entering in the regis­ter, getting it checked and the other pro­cedure indicated in sub--paras (a) to (d) of para 26 of the written statement, he was not entitled to recover the value of and subsidy for 86 bags of salt. It has to be noted that P. W. 1 did not file any cross-objections in this appeal regarding the same. He accepted the judgment and decree of the Sub-Judge regarding the 86 bags of salt. No doubt, his learn­ed Counsel stated that P. W. 1 was finan­cially in bad circumstances and that, therefore, he did not file any cross-ob­jections. Disregarding the conduct of P. W. 1 in not filing cross-objections re­garding his claim for 86 bags of salt which was disallowed by Sub-Judge, it has to be noted that the same reasoning of the learned Sub-Judge would apply, to the remaining 418 bags of salt also. For, the second appellant directed P. W. 1 to furnish personal security for Rs. 9000 for the same and take delivery of the same. But, he failed to do so just as he failed to furnish cash security of Rs. 3000 and take delivery of 86 " bags of salt. For, the second appellant directed P. W. 1 to furnish personal security for Rs. 9000 for the same and take delivery of the same. But, he failed to do so just as he failed to furnish cash security of Rs. 3000 and take delivery of 86 " bags of salt. The learned Sub-Judge distinguished the claim of P. W. 1 for 418 bags of salt on the ground that Exts. D-l and D-2, private copies of the orders of this Court in Criminal Reference 5 of 1952 and Cri­minal Revision 8 of 1952, were not ad­missible in evidence, that the said 418 bags of salt were seized illegally, that they were not released by the appellants in spite of the orders by the "Higher Court" and that therefore, the appellants were liable to pay the price of and sub­sidy for the said 418 bags of salt to P. W. 1. The learned Sub-Judge made some incorrect observations in his judg­ment. He held that the order of sei­zure of the 418 bags of salt passed by the second appellant was illegal, and that, though a reference was made by the Sessions Judge to this Court to set aside the order of the second appellant regard­ing the 418 bags of salt, there was noth­ing on record to show that this Court re­jected the reference. Again, he observed in para 25 of his judgment that their release was ordered by the "Higher Court" and that still the 418 bags of salt were not released. All these observa­tions are incorrect. In para 23 of his judgment, he stated that both the par­ties marked the documents as Exhibits waiving formal proof. He exhibited the documents filed by P. W. 1 as Exts. P-l to P-15 on his behalf, and the documents filed by the appellants as Exts. D-l to D-9 on behalf of the appellants. They include Exts. D-l and D-2 uncertified copies of orders of this Court passed in Criminal Reference 5 of 1952 and in Cri­minal Revision 8 of 1952 dated 6-9-1952. He should not have exhibited them, if he felt that they were not admissible in evidence as they were only uncertified copies. The appellants filed certified co­pies of Exts. D-l and D-2 and a compa­rison of the exhibits shows that Ex4s. D-l and D-2 are correct copies. He should not have exhibited them, if he felt that they were not admissible in evidence as they were only uncertified copies. The appellants filed certified co­pies of Exts. D-l and D-2 and a compa­rison of the exhibits shows that Ex4s. D-l and D-2 are correct copies. This Court stated in Criminal Refer­ence 5 of 1952 dated 6-9-1952 as can be seen from Ext. D-l, (of which certified copy was also produced) regarding the transfer of the Criminal Case to the Court of the District Magistrate that the Sub-Divisional Magistrate did not com­mit any error in his orders, that he was not bound to accept the final report of the police, that he was correct in enter­taining the "naraji" petition filed by the complainant in the case after he had learnt about the final report submitted by the police and that the orders of the second appellant regarding the property did not show that he committed any error which would warrant any appre­hension in the mind of the accused that the case would not be heard impartially and that the District Magistrate was not justified in transferring the case to his own file. This Court cancelled the order of the District Magistrate transferring the case and directed the second appellant to dispose of the case according to law. Cer­tified copy of the order of this Court dated 13-12-1952 in Criminal Reference 29 of 1952 shows that this Court disposed of the Criminal Motion No. 136 of 1952 on the file of the District and Sessions Judge Agartala on 10-12-1952. The Sessions Judge stated in the refer­ence, as can be seen from the certified copy of his reference in Ext. P-8 relat­ing to Criminal Motion No. 136 of 1952, that the order of the second appellant directing P. W. 1 to furnish security for Rs. 9000/- for release of 418 bags of salt was improper and unjust, that it should be set aside and that the same should be released in his favour without any secu­rity. The Sessions Judge further stated in his reference that the order of the second appellant demanding security to the extent of Rs. 3000/- in respect of the remaining 86 bags of salt would stand. Ext. P-7 is a certified copy of the letter forwarding the records to this Court in Criminal Motion 136 of 1952. Ext. The Sessions Judge further stated in his reference that the order of the second appellant demanding security to the extent of Rs. 3000/- in respect of the remaining 86 bags of salt would stand. Ext. P-7 is a certified copy of the letter forwarding the records to this Court in Criminal Motion 136 of 1952. Ext. P-9 is a certified copy of the explanation of the second appellant. The certified copy of the order of this Court No. 2 dated 13-12-1952 produced by the appellants shows that this Court rejected the refer­ence and held that it was left to the dis­cretion of the Trial Court to pass an ap­propriate order as it deemed just with re­gard to the property Which was perish­able and that it was not a matter with which this Court should interfere in revi­sion. It is in accordance with the order of this Court, as per Ext. D-2 dated 6-9-1952 of which certified copy was filed. A certified copy of this order dated 13-12-1952 was not produced in the Lower Court. But, it can be looked into by this Court in this appeal as it is an order of this Court which is the final appellate and revisional authority of Tripura. As such, Exts. P-7 to P-9 and order No. 2 of this Court dated 13-12-1952 go to show that the reference was rejected and that the order of the Sub-Divisional Magis­trate calling upon P. W. 1 to take deli­very of 418 bags of salt was allowed to stand. This Is also further borne out by Ext. D-2 filed in the Lower Court, which is an uncertified copy dated 6-9-1952, which was marked by consent. No doubt the case ended in the discharge of the ac­cused finally. But the orders which were passed in the Criminal Case go to show that P. W. 1 was directed to furnish per­sonal security for Rs, 9000/- and take delivery of 418 bags of salt, but that he did not take delivery of the same. So, the case of P.W. 1 with regard to the remaining 418 bags of salt stands on the same footing as his case relating to the remaining 86 bags of salt. The claim to the price of and subsidy for the same was negatived by the Lower Court. So, the case of P.W. 1 with regard to the remaining 418 bags of salt stands on the same footing as his case relating to the remaining 86 bags of salt. The claim to the price of and subsidy for the same was negatived by the Lower Court. There is no differ­ence between the two items of 86 bags of salt on one hand and 418 bags of salt on the other which were separately sei­zed by the police as can be seen from Exts. P-4 and P-5 dated 1-1-1952. As such, the reasoning and judgment with regard to 86 bags of salt equally hold good with regard to the remaining 418 bags of salt and the Sub-Judge should have negatived the claim of P. W. 1 for the price of and subsidy for the latter also. 12. For the above reasons I find point (i) against the respondent. 13. Point (ii):- The judgment of the learned Sub-Judge shows that the appellants argued before him that Article 56 of Schedule 1 of the Limitation Act (Act IX of 1908) would apply. He held that Article 120 of the Limitation Act applies and that Article 56 would not apply. I had an occasion to refer to the question of limitation in a similar case between Hiralal Jain v. Union of India, New Delhi, First Appeal No. 16 of 1962= (AIR 1968 Tri 63) where also the plaintiff alleged that his goods were wrongfully seized and sold by the Customs Authorities. I held that Article 49 of Schedule 1 of the Indian Limitation Act (Act IX of 1908) would apply. Article 49 runs as follows:- "49. For other spe. Three When the prolific moveable property years perty is wrong. or for compensation fully taken or for wrongfully taking injured or when or injuring or wrong- the detainer's fully detaining the possession be. same. comes unlawful"' So, the period of limitation would start when the property was wrongfully taken or injured or when the detainer's pos­session became unlawful. P. W. 1 al­leged in paragraph 8 of his plaint that the appellants wrongfully refused to re­lease the goods in his favour. Also it follows from the fact that ultimately Captain Das Gupta was discharged in the Criminal Case, the seizure was wrongful. So, P. W. 1 should have filed the suit within 3 years from 1-1-1952 the date of the seizure (evidenced by Exts. Also it follows from the fact that ultimately Captain Das Gupta was discharged in the Criminal Case, the seizure was wrongful. So, P. W. 1 should have filed the suit within 3 years from 1-1-1952 the date of the seizure (evidenced by Exts. P-4 and P-5) or within 3 years from the date of the sale of the goods. The suit was filed on 8-4-1958. So, it is barred by limita­tion, if the period of limitation of 3 years is counted from 1-1-1952. Even if the said period is counted from the date of the sale of the goods, then also the suit is barred by limitation. For, the Criminal Case was dismissed on 3-1-1955 and the payment of the sale proceeds was ordered to be made to P. W. 1 by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate on 31-1-1955. As such, the goods must have been sold prior to 3-1-1955. The period of 2 months' notice issued by P. W. 1 to the appellants under Section 80 Civil Proce­dure Code has to be excluded. Even then the suit should have been filed at least on 3-3-1958. But, it was filed on 8-4-1958. So, in any view of the matter the suit Is barred by limitation. 14. The contention of the learned Counsel for the respondent is two-fold. Firstly, he urged that Article 120 of Schedule I of the Limitation Act would apply and relied on three rulings, which are all distinguishable from the facts of this case. In Panchanan Das v. Province of Orissa, AIR 1955 Orissa 57 the Gov­ernment failed completely to discharge the duty imposed upon it by Rule 75A(5) of Defence of India Rules of 1939 in not determining the amount of compensation and not paving it to the owner of the property from whom it was requisitioned. It was held that the ordinary remedy of recovery of compensation was available to the owner, but that the period of limitation for his suit was governed by Article 120 of the Limitation Act. be­cause the suit was not for damages for any wrongful act of the government ser­vant. In State of Travancore-Cochin v. Janardan Pal, AIR 1957 Ker 151 the State realised a sum of money from the plaintiff who was the treasurer of a District Treasury on the ground that he had paid the amount to a wrong person. be­cause the suit was not for damages for any wrongful act of the government ser­vant. In State of Travancore-Cochin v. Janardan Pal, AIR 1957 Ker 151 the State realised a sum of money from the plaintiff who was the treasurer of a District Treasury on the ground that he had paid the amount to a wrong person. It was held that the cause of action for the plaintiff's suit for refund of the amount arose when he made the pay­ment pursuant to Government orders and that the subsequent attempts to make the Government re-consider their order could not have the effect of stopping or arresting the time which had begun to run for purposes of limitation even if Article 120 of the Limitation Act applied. In Chetandas Gulabchand v. State of Bihar, AIR 1958 Pat 512 the Additional District Magistrate ordered the sale of certain goods. It was held that as his order could not be held to be a wrong­ful act. Article 49 of the Limitation Act would not have been attracted and that the suit filed by the owner of the goods for payment of compensation against the Government would be governed by the residuary Article 120. Thus, in none of the above cases was there any wrongful seizure. But, as I have already stated that the seizure of the salt in this case was wrongful and as the plaint proceed­ed on the same basis. Article 49 of the Limitation Act would certainly apply to this case. 15. The second contention of the learned Counsel for the respondent is that in para 19 of the plaint the respon­dent mentioned that the cause of action arose on 11-2-1955 the date on which he withdrew the auction money of Rs. 4000/-and the subsequent dates, but that the appellants did not deny the correctness of the said allegation and that therefore the suit was in time. He further argued that if P. W. 1 filed the plaint earlier he might have been non-suited on the ground that the suit was premature and that he should have waited for the pay­ment of the money by the Government. But these contentions are not correct. He further argued that if P. W. 1 filed the plaint earlier he might have been non-suited on the ground that the suit was premature and that he should have waited for the pay­ment of the money by the Government. But these contentions are not correct. For, the subsequent attempts of P. W. 1 to make the appellants re-consider their orders or the fact that P. W. 1 waited anticipating payment of the amount due to him would not have the effect of stopping or arresting the time which had already begun to run for the purpose of limitation under Article 49 of the Limi­tation Act. So. in any event the suit is barred by limitation. 16. For the above reasons, I find point (ii) in the affirmative. 17. Point (iii): - The learned Counsel for the appel­lants contended that under Article 300(1) of the Constitution of India the first ap­pellant is not liable for any tortious act done by its officers in discharge of their duties, that even if the case of P. W. 1 is true, his suit is one for damages for the tortious act of unlawful seizure of the bags of salt by the police officers in discharge of their official statutory duties under the Criminal Procedure Code and that the suit is not maintainable. He re­lied on Kasturi Lal Ralia Ram v. State of Uttar Pradesh. AIR 1965 SC 1039 . This aspect of the case arose for decision in a similar matter in First Appeal No. 16 of 1962= (AIR 1968 Tri 63) disposed of by me on 20-11-1967. Therein I fully discussed the question of law and the rulings relating to it in paragraphs 23 to 27 of my judgment and held that the Government is not liable for the tortious acts of its servants done in exercise of their sovereign powers in the course of their employment by the State. There is, however, one point of distinction be­tween the present case and the cases in AIR 1965 SC 1039 and First Appeal No. 16 of 1962= (AIR 1968 Tri 63) on the file of this Court. That point is that the goods were seized from the plaintiffs in those two cases against whom proceed­ings were taken under the Sea Customs Act (Act VIII of 1878) and other con­nected Acts. That point is that the goods were seized from the plaintiffs in those two cases against whom proceed­ings were taken under the Sea Customs Act (Act VIII of 1878) and other con­nected Acts. In the present case P. W. 1 was not involved in the Criminal Case. Only Captain Das Gupta, the proprietor of Tripura Air Ways, who was the agent of Bharat Air Ways, was prosecuted. The contention of the Learned Counsel for the appellants is that the principle under­lying AIR 1965 SC 1039 would apply to this case also, even though P. W. 1 was not involved in any criminal case. I re­frain from discussing this aspect of the case further, because the decision on points (i) and (ii) would not entitle P. W. 1 to claim any amount either towards the price of or subsidy for 418 bags of salt, lest this case in which no prosecu­tion was launched against the plaintiff should be a precedent. No finding is given on point (iii). 18. Point (iv):- In the result, the appeal is allowed and the judgment and decree of the Lower Court are set aside. The suit is dismiss­ed. But, I direct the parties to bear their respective costs in both the Courts as the appellants did not properly con­duct the case in the Lower Court and did not file certified copies of all the neces­sary documents, on which they relied. BNP/D.V.C. Appeal allowed.