ORDER : Hari Swarup, J. This is a Plaintiffs' appeal arising out of a suit for an injunction to direct the Defendants to return to the Plaintiffs four arms namely a revolver No. 17528, D.B.L. gun Hammerless No. 532/502, Rifle No. 1378 and0 one D.B.B.L gun with Hammer No. 21/466. A relief in the alternative contemplated by Order 20, Rule 10 CPC for the amount of money in case the delivery of goods be not possible was also claimed. Plaintiffs further claimed interest on the value of the four items of arms and also damages for the alleged torturous acts of the Respondents. 2. The Plaintiffs' case, in brief, was that they were dealers in arms and for that they had a licence under the Arms Act. This licence was cancelled by the District Magistrate on September 2, 1948. On the licence being cancelled the entire arms and ammunitions were to be deposited in pursuance of the order of the District Magistrate in the police armoury. Thereafter Plaintiffs made effort for the return of the arms but as the licence had not been granted in their favour they could not get them; their efforts to sell or dispose of the arms also failed. Ultimately on 27-6-1950 the District Magistrate informed the Plaintiffs that according to some order of the State Government the arms and ammunitions had stood forfeited. The Plaintiffs did not accept that the forfeiture order was valid and went on making efforts to get permission to dispose of the arms. Ultimately on 13-11-1956 the District Magistrate passed a formal order of forfeiture. Against this order Plaintiffs went up in appeal. The appeal was allowed by the Commissioner. According to the Commissioner the order dated 13-11-1956 was no order in the eye of law. The District Magistrate was accordingly required to pass a proper order of forfeiture. On 27-4-57 the District Magistrate passed an order of forfeiture making it effective retrospectively from 13-11-1956. The Plaintiffs again filed an appeal against this order. The Commissioner on 25-4-58 allowed the appeal and modified the order of the District Magistrate by making it effective for six months after the date of the order that is 25-4-58. On the basis of this order all the arms and ammunitions were permitted to be disposed of by the Plaintiffs except the four arms which are the subject matter of the present suit. On the basis of this order all the arms and ammunitions were permitted to be disposed of by the Plaintiffs except the four arms which are the subject matter of the present suit. The Plaintiffs were informed that these four items had been sold away after the forfeiture order had been passed by the District Magistrate on 13-11-56, and before that order was superseded by the Commissioner's order, the Revolver No. 17528 was said to have been sold for Rs. 5/- to Sri R.K. Trivedi who was then the District Magistrate, the D.B.B. L. gun No. 532/502 was sold to Sri K.S. Pandey, Arms clerk for Rs. 20/-, Rifle No. 1378 was sold to sri H.S. Tiwari, the Additional District Magistrate for Rs. 5/- and the D.B.B.L. Gun No. 21/466 was sold to Sri R.P Srivastava, Treasury Officer for Rs. 10/-. The Plaintiffs thereupon filed the present suit on January 15, 1960 which has given rise to the present appeal. 3. The Defendants' case was that the sale of the four arms had been validly made and the Plaintiffs were not entitled either to the return of the arms or to get the value thereof. From a reading of the written statement it appears that the case of the Defendants was that u/s 16 of the Arms Act there is automatic forfeiture after the expiry of six months' period from the date the arms are deposited in accordance with Sub-section (1) of Section 16 and as the period prescribed had already expired, the arms automatic stood forfeited to the State Government and thereafter Plaintiffs ceased to have any interest in the arms. As they had no interest left in the arms they could not maintain the suit. 4. The trial court accepted the Plaintiffs' case that there was no valid order of forfeiture passed in the case and hence the Respondents were liable to return the arms to the Plaintiffs. It further held that the price paid for these arms were not reasonable. Accord ing to it the price of the goods should be assessed as under: Revolver Rs. 200/, D.B.B.L. Gun Rs. 1000/-, Rifle Rs, 200/-and D.B.B.L. Gun Rs. 800/-. Thus according to the trial court the Plaintiffs were entitled to get a sum of Rs. 2200/-as price of the four arms in case they were not to be returned. Accord ing to it the price of the goods should be assessed as under: Revolver Rs. 200/, D.B.B.L. Gun Rs. 1000/-, Rifle Rs, 200/-and D.B.B.L. Gun Rs. 800/-. Thus according to the trial court the Plaintiffs were entitled to get a sum of Rs. 2200/-as price of the four arms in case they were not to be returned. The trial Court on the basis of its findings passed a decree directing the State Government as well as the four persons who were said to have purchased the arms to return the same and place them in the custody of the District Magistrate, Faizabad so that they may be sold or disposed of in accordance with law. in case the arms were not available, the trial court directed the State Government to satisfy the decree by paying Rs. 2200/-. 5. Against the decree of the trial court the State Government and the four persons who had purchased the arms filed an appeal. In this appeal the appellate court held that the suit was barred by limitation and that there was an automatic forfeiture of the arms after the expiry of six months period from the date of the deposit of arms. On these findings the appeal was allowed and the Plaintiffs' suit was dismissed. Against this decree the Plaintiffs have now come up in appeal to this Court. 6. Learned Counsel for the Appellants contended that there was no deposit of the arms in accordance with Section 16(1) of the Arms Act because arms had not been deposited with the officer-in-charge of the nearest police station, but in the police armoury and accordingly there could have been no forfeiture of the goods. It is not open to the Plaintiffs to raise this point. They never made any such complaint before the District Magistrate or the Commissioner. The deposit by the Plaintiffs was at their own instance. They could have made deposit with the officer-in-Charge or the Police Station and not in the police armoury. In any case irregularity in making deposit will no take away the affect of Sub-section (3) of Section 16 which deals with the forfeiture of arms. It was open to the Plaintiff to get the arms sold or disposed of Under Sub-section (2) of Section 16 of the Arms Act even if they were in deposit with the police armoury accordingly overrule this objection. 7. It was open to the Plaintiff to get the arms sold or disposed of Under Sub-section (2) of Section 16 of the Arms Act even if they were in deposit with the police armoury accordingly overrule this objection. 7. The next point contended by the learned Counsel is that there was no valid order of forfeiture and in any case the order of forfeiture passed by the District Magistrate had been set aside in appeal by the Commissioner. To meet the argument of the other side learned Counsel contended that even if the Commissioner could not have ordered the District Magistrate to forfeit the arms the State Government cannot now take this plea as the appellate order bad been given affect to. As a matter of fact it is not a case of the Respondent in the written statement that there was any order of forfeiture. Their case in the pleading as accepted by the first appellate court was that the' forfeiture under Sub-section (3) of the Arms Act was automatic, and it came into effect as soon as the period fixed under Rule 183 had expired. It was particularly for this reason that the Respondents produced no document to show that the arms in fact had been forfeited by any specific order of the District Magistrate. It is only from the appellate court's order that it is discovered that some order was passed by District Magistrate. 8. Sub-section (3) of Section 16 of the Arms Act reads as under: All things deposited as aforesaid and not returned or disposed of under Sub-section (2) within the prescribed period therein referred to, shall, be forfeited to Government. Sub-section (4) runs as under: 4(a) The Central Government may make rules consistent with this Act for carrying into effect the provisions of this Section (b) In particular and without pre-judice to the generality of the foregoing provision, the Central Government may be rule prescribe- (i) The conditions subject to which arms, ammunitions and military stores may be deposited with a licensed dealer and (ii) The period after the expiry of which things deposited as aforesaid shall be forfeited under Sub-section (3). The use of the words "shall be forfeited" in Sub-section (3) as well as in Sub-clause (ii) of Clause (b) of Sub-section (4) of Section 16 makes it apparent that some order has to be passed forfeiting the goods. The use of the words "shall be forfeited" in Sub-section (3) as well as in Sub-clause (ii) of Clause (b) of Sub-section (4) of Section 16 makes it apparent that some order has to be passed forfeiting the goods. Had this not been the intention the word used would have been "shall stand forfeited' and not "shall be forfeited." Rule 183 of the Arms Act as applicable to the State of Uttar Pradesh provided for deposit and forfeiture of the arms. According to it, arms have to be kept normally for six months. Sub-rule (9) of Rule 183 is relevant for interpreation of words "shall be forfeited" in Sub-section (3) of Section 16 of the Arms Act. It runs as under: Annual statement of forfeited arms, Etc. - Licensed dealers and Officers-in-charge, of Malkhanas in which arms, ammunitions and stores are lodged under Sub-rule (5) shall submit on the 31st Day of December of each year to the District Magistrate a statement showing the arms, ammunitions and stores which have become liable to forfeiture under Sub-rule 8. Thus it is apparent that, the goods may remain in deposit for more than six months as statement has to be submitted on the 31st day of December, each year. Further the words in Sub-rule 9: "which have become liable for forfeiture" also indicate that there is no automatic forfeiture but that some order has to be passed forfeiting the arms, ammunition and stores, The view taken by the first appellate court that forfeiture is automatic u/s 16(3) of the Arms Act is obviously erroneous. 9. As already mentioned no specific order of forfeiture has been produced by the Defendants in the case although the burden was on the Defendants to prove that the arms had been forfeited by a valid order. Learned Counsel for the Respondents has contended that Ex. A-2 refers to some order of forfeiture passed by the State Government and that order amounted to a valid forfeiture. That order has not been produced. Its terms are not known and it is not alleged that the order was passed after affording to the Plaintiffs an opportunity of being heard. The order dated 13th November, 1956 forfeiting the arms is also indicative of the fact that no earlier order of forfeiture in respect of these arms had not passed. This order has been quoted in Ex. The order dated 13th November, 1956 forfeiting the arms is also indicative of the fact that no earlier order of forfeiture in respect of these arms had not passed. This order has been quoted in Ex. 28 which is, the appellate order passed by the Commissioner. It runs as under: Approved, they may be forfeited. The Commissioner considering this order and looking at the records of the case has observed as under: From the lower courts record it is found that even this order had not been dectated by the lower court, The note of the Arms clerk dated 13-11-1956 has merely been counter signed by him and in fact when the copy was applied for instructions had to be issued what portion of the arms clerk's note should be copied. The Commissioner held that the licences was entitled to a notice of hearing before the order for forfeiture was passed. He accordingly set aside that order and directed the matter to be reconsidered. This appeal was treated as an appeal under Rule 175 of the U.P. Arms Rules which provided for appeal against the order cancelling the licence. The Commissioner treated the forfeiture proceedings as consequential to the proceeding of cancellation of licence. Further whether the appeal was maintainable or not the District Magistrate himself passed another order of forfeiture on 27-4-1957 superseding, the earlier order dated 13-11-1956 and this order as already mentioned was made to operate with retrospective effect from 13th November 1956. The earlier order as mentioned by the Commissioner in the appellate order was hardly an order passed in accordance with law. It does not show that any opportunity of bearing was provided to the licencee whose arms had been forfeited. It also does not show that the District Magistrate had applied his mind to the facts, and circumstances of the case. As the order had civil consequences and affected the rights of the Plaintiffs it could not have been passed without affording them the opportunity of hearing. It was held in the case of State of Orissa Vs. Dr. It also does not show that the District Magistrate had applied his mind to the facts, and circumstances of the case. As the order had civil consequences and affected the rights of the Plaintiffs it could not have been passed without affording them the opportunity of hearing. It was held in the case of State of Orissa Vs. Dr. (Miss) Binapani Dei and Others, AIR 1967 SC 1269 : It is true that the order is administrative in character, but even an administrative order which involves civil consequences, as already stated, must be made consistently with the rules of natural justice after informing the first Respondent of the case of the State, the evidence in support thereof and after giving an opportunity to the first Respondent of being heard and meeting or explaining the evidence. This case certainly arose in different circumstance but the principle of law as enunciated therein applies with full force to orders directing forfeiture of good under Sub-section (3) of Section 16, of the Arms Act. 10. The second order of the District Magistrate dated 27-4-57 was also passed without affording the Plaintiffs any opportunity of being heard. The terms and contents of the order have not been quoted anywhere but only the substance is given in the appellate order dated 23-4-58, from that it appears that the order was retrospective in operation. This order of the District Magistrate will be bad not only because it was passed without affording any opportunity of being heard but also because it gave retrospective effect to the operation of the order. Sub-section (3) of Section 16 of the Act does not contemplate forfeiture of goods with re-trospective operation. There was thus no valid order passed by the District Magistrate forfeiting the goods. The only order which could be held to be a valid order of forfeiture was the order of the D.M. dated 27-4-57 as modified by the Commissioner per his order dated 23-4-1958. Section 16 of the Arms Act or rules made therein do not mention as to who is the person authorised to pass the forfeiture order. The forfeiture order could therefore have been passed either by the licencing officer or the Commissioner who is the superior officer. The order of the Commissioner modifying the order of the District Magistrate could thus be ah effective order of forfeiture. 11. The forfeiture order could therefore have been passed either by the licencing officer or the Commissioner who is the superior officer. The order of the Commissioner modifying the order of the District Magistrate could thus be ah effective order of forfeiture. 11. On the admitted case of the Respondents the sale of the four arms had been made prior to the order passed by the District Magistrate dated 27-4-57 or by the Commissioner dated 23-4-1958. The sale of arms was therefore unauthorised. Normally, the purchasers would be liable to return the goods to the Plaintiffs, but as the arms in question had been ultimately forfeited and had become liable to be disposed of, it would not be in the interest of' justice to direct the purchasers to return them to the Plaintiffs, The evidence produced by the Plaintiff and the findings recorded by the trial court on the basis of that evidence, how-ever, leave no doubt that the safes had been made at prices much; below their real value. The question then arises as to which of the Defendants should pay compensation. The State Government must pay the amount which it received as price from the purchasers and that Defendants Nos. 19, 22, 26 and 27 should pay the balance of the value of the respective weapons they purchased. The provisions of Order XX Rule 10 of the CPC will therefore be attracted and the Respondents will be liable to pay to the Plaintiffs the amount of money which represents the value of article they had purchased. 12. The trial court did assess the value of each item but has not given cogent reasons for fixing the amounts. As for instance even though the evidence in respect of the D.B.B.L. Gun No. 532/502 was that it was sold only some time latter for Rs. 625/- the trial court assessed its value arbitrarily at Rs. 1,000/-. Although according to the Plaintiff its price should have been Rs. 1,100/- it was subsequently sold for much less amount and higher amount could not be reasonably awarded. It appears that the Plaintiffs had exaggerated their claim in respect of this item. So far as other items are concerned the trial court has not given any specific reasons for fixing their value. The first appellate court has given no finding in this respect. It appears that the Plaintiffs had exaggerated their claim in respect of this item. So far as other items are concerned the trial court has not given any specific reasons for fixing their value. The first appellate court has given no finding in this respect. The case will, therefore, have to be remanded to the lower appellate court for decision of the appeal after determining the quantum of loss suffered by the Plaintiffs on the basis of the evidence produced in the case. If the lower appellate court finds that the price paid for any of the items was less than its value on the date of the sale, it will pass a decree against the purchaser for that amount less the price of the item he had paid to the, State Government and will also pass a decree against the State Government for the amount already received by it. 13. Learned Counsel for the Respondent in the end contended that the suit was barred by limitation. The relevant Article of the Limitation Act was Article 49 which provides three years of limitation from the date the detainer's possession becomes unlawful As the effective order of forfeiture was passed by the District Magistrate on 27-4-1937 as modified by the order of the Commissioner dated 27-4-58, the limitation of three years will run from 27-4-58 and the suit will be within time. 14. Learned Counsel for the parties have stated that the Plaintiffs and Sri R.K. Trivedi, Respondent No. 2 have settled their dispute opt of court and that the Plaintiff s suit as against him be dismissed and that the Plaintiffs will have no claims even against the other Defendants in so far as it related to the forfeiture and sale of the revolver to Sri R.K. Trivedi, The appeal dismissing the suit in respect of this item is accordingly dismissed. 15. The appeal is partly allowed, the decree of the appellate court except as against R.K. Trivedi, Respondent No. 2 and in respect of the Plaintiffs' claim in respect of the revolver purchased by him is set aside and the case is remanded to the first appellate court for deciding the appeal against the remaining four Respondents in accordance with law as indicated In this judgment. In the circumstances of the case parties will bear their own costs.