Short Note : 1. The plaintiff was a firm by name Manilal Puruhottam of Guna. The suit was filed against the State of Madhya Pradesh for the recovery of Rs. 11,481. The plaintiff submitted that the amount of Sales Tax was recovered from the plaintiff firm during the period from 1950-51 to 1957-58. The plaintiff further alleged that on 16-12-1959, in a writ petition filed by 16 tobacco dealers of Ujjain the Honourable High Court of Madhya Pradesh declared that the imposition of Sales Tax on the imported tobacco under section 5 of the Sales Tax Act was discriminatory and in contravention of the Constitution of India. This Judgment received wide publicity through daily newspapers and through these newspapers, the plaintiff came to know that the imposition of Sales Tax on imported tobacco was illegal. The plaintiff filed a writ petition in the Honourable High Court, which was registered as petition No. 132 of 1960. The writ petition was partly allowed declaring the imposition of Sales Tax on the imported tobacco and the assessment made thereon for the years 1950-51 to 1957-58 as illegal, void and ultra vires of the Constitution. As far as refund was concerned which was asked in the writ petition, the Honourable High Court said that the plaintiff might seek other remedy according to law. Against this decision, the State went in appeal before the Supreme Court and that appeal was pending when the suit was filed. One of the contentions of the defendants was that a case of Mohd. Siddiq v. M. B. State, AIR 1956 MB 214, was decided by Madhya Bharat High Court on 17-1-1956 and the plaintiff had knowledge of it, therefore, the limitation should start from 17-1-1956 and not from the date as alleged by the plaintiff. The trial Court dismissed the suit as time-barred. Held : The finding of the trial Court that the suit is barred by limitation is not correct. It cannot be disputed that the suit is governed by Article 96 of the Limitation Act of 1908. The main point in this case is as to when the mistake became known to the plaintiff. It will be better if this Court sees what was decided in Mohd. Siddiq v. M. B. State, AIR 1956 MB 214. It cannot be disputed that the suit is governed by Article 96 of the Limitation Act of 1908. The main point in this case is as to when the mistake became known to the plaintiff. It will be better if this Court sees what was decided in Mohd. Siddiq v. M. B. State, AIR 1956 MB 214. For an ordinary citizen, who deals in tobacco, it win be very difficult to know or to understand that this case will govern his case also. Here, it may be said with advantage that after this Judgment, the State itself has recovered tax from the present plaintiff So, when the State itself was doubtful as to whether the above ruling will be applicable to tobacco goods, it will be harsh to hope that an ordinary businessman should know that his case is governed by this ruling Therefore, the finding of the trial Court that because of the above ruling, it will be presumed that plaintiff had a knowledge, cannot be sustained and, therefore, this Court sets aside that finding. State of M. P. v. Bhailal Bhai, AIR 1964 SC 1006 Venkataraman and Co. v. State of Madras, AIR 1966 SC 1089 , N. K. Doongaji v. Collector, Sarguja, 1961 JLJ 10 , relied on. Suit decreed. Appeal allowed.