JUDGMENT R.L. Khurana, J.—The plaintiff, Messrs. Uttam Ram and Company, is a registered partnership firm. The defendant No. 1 State of Himachal Pradesh, held auction for the award of work for the extraction of timber in respect of lot No. 30/1980-82 comprised in Lower Chamba Range, known as "Karinhi", "Upper Jhamar1 and "Haddar" on 12/13th February, 1980 at Bhadroa, Tehsil Nurpur, District Kangra. The plaintiff offered the highest bid of Rs. 9,45,000/-, excluding sales tax and surcharge at the rate of 27%. The offer of the plaintiff was accepted and consequently an agreement came to be entered between the plaintiff and defendant No. 1 through its Conservator of Forests, Chamba. The forests were handed over to the plaintiff in July 1980. The timber auctioned comprised of standing volume of "Deodar" to the extent of 34,578 CFT and "Fir and Spruce" to the extent of 70,579 CFT. The work, as per the terms of the agreement was to be completed by March 1982. 2. The plaintiff undertook the work and completed the same well within time. The plaintiff was able to extract total timber to the following extent:— (a) 13,201 scants of Deodar = 17287.33 CFT (b) 19,227 scants of Fir and Spruce = 25885.66 CFT Total : 34,428 scants = 43172.99 CFT During the period the plaintiff was working the forests through its labourers and employees, the work was being supervised by the forest staff and at no point of time it was pointed out that there has been any illicit felling and extraction of timber by the plaintiff. 3. In December 1980, one Punnu Ram, Gram Pradhan of Grma Panchayat Gagla, Tehsil and District Chamba, out of enmity, made a false complaint regarding illicit felling of trees and extraction of timber by the plaintiff. On the basis of such complaint, an inquiry was conducted by Shri K.C. Thakur, the then Assistant Conservator of Forests, Chamba, The plaintiff was never associated during such inquiry. It appears that on the basis of the inquiry so conducted, Shri K.C. Thakur on 12.6.1981 reported that the plaintiff had illicitly felled and extracted timber to the following extent:— Sr. No Name of forest No. & kind of trees Volume Value 1. Karinhi 109 trees of Deodar 128.26 CM Rs. 85,688/- 2. Karinhi 12 trees of Fir and Spruce 6.75 CM Rs. 1,760/- 3. Upper Jhamar 13 trees of Deodar 4.18 CM Rs. 2,792/- 4. No Name of forest No. & kind of trees Volume Value 1. Karinhi 109 trees of Deodar 128.26 CM Rs. 85,688/- 2. Karinhi 12 trees of Fir and Spruce 6.75 CM Rs. 1,760/- 3. Upper Jhamar 13 trees of Deodar 4.18 CM Rs. 2,792/- 4. Upper Jhamar 1 tree of Fir and Spruce 0.42 CM Rs. 112/- 5. Haddar Total : 1 tree of Deodar 217 trees 0.28 CM 139.87 CM Rs. 187/-Rs. 90.575/- Shri K.C. Thakur, above named, after having prepared his report called upon the Managers of the plaintiff to verify the correctness of the report. Shri Lachhi Ram, one of the Manager of the plaintiff, is alleged to have appended a note on such report that the trees alleged to have been illicitly felled had the stumps of 10 to 12 years old and as such the same could not have been felled during the relevant lease period of the plaintiff. It was asserted that no tree was illicitly felled and timber extracted. However, in spite of objections raised on behalf of the plaintiff, on the basis of the report of Shri K.C. Thakur, the forest department in August 1981 illegally seized the following timber from a place known as Haddar, about two kilometres outside Haddar forest and below the rope span laid by the plaintiff:— (a) Deodar 2659 scants 3149.42 CFT (b) Fir & Spruce 219 scants 309.27 CFT Total : 2878 scants 3458.69 CFT 4. The timber so seized was then auctioned in August 1981 for a sum of Rs, 73,000/- in favour of Massrs Daya Ram and Brothers of Gada Gussain, Tehsif Chachiot, District Mandi, and the amount deposited in Government treasury. The plaintiff was also asked to deposit a sum of Rs. 90,576/- by defendant No. 5, the Divisional Forest Officer, Chamba, as penalty which amount was deposited by the plaintiff under protest in the months of April/May 1982. 5. The plaintiff by averring the seizure of timber as wrong and illegal, has filed the present suit on 6.6.1985 for the recovery of Rs. 5,76,294.15 paise detailed as under:— (i) Market value of the seized timber as prevailing in October 1982 Rs. 2,56,103.05 P (ii) Interest at the rate of 18% per annum from 1.8.1981 till 23.3.1985 Rs. 1,67,975.50 P (iii) Refund of the amount paid by the plaintiff under protest in April/May 1982 Rs. 5,76,294.15 paise detailed as under:— (i) Market value of the seized timber as prevailing in October 1982 Rs. 2,56,103.05 P (ii) Interest at the rate of 18% per annum from 1.8.1981 till 23.3.1985 Rs. 1,67,975.50 P (iii) Refund of the amount paid by the plaintiff under protest in April/May 1982 Rs. 90,575.00 P (iv) Interest on the above at the rate of 18% per annum till 22.3.1985 Rs. 61,640.00 P 6. The defendants, while resisting the suit have admitted the lease of lot No, 30/1980-82 in favour of the plaintiff. It was averred that the plaintiff during the working of the forests had indulged in illicit felling of trees. The extraction figure shown by the plaintiff in his plaint was denied and it was pleaded that such figure varies with that shown by the plaintiff in the progress reports being submitted from time to time during the working of the forests. It was further pleaded that the timber on having been found to have been extracted from illicitly felled trees was rightly and validly seized and sold in auction. The penalty was rightly imposed and the amount of such penalty was deposited by the plaintiff without any protest and objection. The defendants further raised objections as to limitation, maintainability of the suit and estoppel. 7. On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed on ^1 in 1QR5-__ 1. Whether the plaintiff has not challenged the order of confiscation/ seizure of the timber and, therefore, the suit is not maintainable in its present form? OPD 2. Whether the suit is within limitation? OPD 3. Whether the timber, seized by the defendant, was extracted from the trees auctioned to the plaintiff in lot No. 30 of 1980-82? OPP 4. Whether the plaintiff is estopped by his act and conduct from pleading that no illicit felling took place? OPD 5. Whether a sum of Rs. 90,775/- was deposited by the plaintiff under protest and the plaintiff-firm is entitled to recover it? OPP 6. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover a sum of Rs. 2,56,103.05 as price of the seized timber? OPP 7. To what amount of interest, if any, is the plaintiff entitled to recover? OPP 8. Relief. 8. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case. OPP 6. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover a sum of Rs. 2,56,103.05 as price of the seized timber? OPP 7. To what amount of interest, if any, is the plaintiff entitled to recover? OPP 8. Relief. 8. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case. My findings on the above issues are as under:— Issue No. 2 9. By virtue of the present suit, the plaintiff is claiming two amounts, that is— (a) Cost of the timber alleged to have been illegally seized and sold in auction in August 1981, and interest thereon; and (b) Refund of the penalty amount alleged to have been wrongly recovered from the plaintiff and interest thereon. Relief (a) Admittedly, the timber was seized and sold in auction in the month of August 1981. The present suit has been filed on 6.6,1985. Article 91, Limitation Act, 1963, deals with suit for compensation in I respect of specific movable property wrongfully taken or detained by the I defendant. It reads: "91. For compensation,— (a) for wrongfully taking or detaining any specific movable property lost, or acquired by theft, or dishonest misappropriation or conversion; Three years When the person having the right to the possession of the property first learns in whose possession it is; (b) for wrongfully taking or injuring or wrongfully detaining any other specific movable property. Three years When the property is wrongfully taken or injured, or when the detainers possession becomes unlawful." The above provisions correspond to the provisions contained in Article 48 of the Limitation Act, 1908. 10. In Yarlagadda China Rattayya and another v. Donepudi Venkataramayya and others, AIR 1959 AP 551, the plaintiff therein had filed a suit for the recovery of compensation of Rs. 3,00,000/- under the following three heads:— (i) Rs. 1,50,000/- as damages for illegal cancellation of the forest lease; (ii) Rs. 50,000/- as value of the timber alleged to have been taken possession of by the defendants; and (iii) Rs. 1,00,000/- being the value of some movables illegally taken over by the defendants. 11. A question arose whether for the purpose of the relief under the second head, Article 48 or Article 116 of the Limitation Act, 1908 would apply. 50,000/- as value of the timber alleged to have been taken possession of by the defendants; and (iii) Rs. 1,00,000/- being the value of some movables illegally taken over by the defendants. 11. A question arose whether for the purpose of the relief under the second head, Article 48 or Article 116 of the Limitation Act, 1908 would apply. The contention raised on behalf of the plaintiff was that since the alleged wrong flowed from the contract of lease, Article 116 of the Limitation Act, 1908 would apply. Repelling the contention of the plaintiff, it was held that the wrong committed was independent of the contract of lease and therefore the suit qua the relief under the second head would be governed by Article 48 of the Limitation Act, 1908 which corresponds to Article 91 (b) of the Limitation Act, 1963. The above ratio applies to the facts of the present case on all fours. Therefore, the period of limitation for the recovery of damages under this head would be three years beginning from the date the timber is alleged to have been seized. Ex. DW 3/E is the memo prepared at the time of seizure of timber. A perusal of the same shows that the timber was seized on 28.6.1981. Such seized timber was put to auction on 21.8.1981. Therefore, calculating the period of limitation of three years from 28.6.1981 or even from 21.8.1981, the present suit filed on 6.6.1985 qua the present relief is, on the face of it, barred by time. Relief (b). 12. The plaintiff has averred in para 12 of the plaint in the following terms:— "12. That the plaintiff was asked to deposit a sum of Rs. 90,575 by the Divisional Forest Officer, Chamba, which was deposited by the plaintiff under protest, the money was deposited in the months of April and May 1982." The plaintiff under the present relief is seeking to recover the said amount. It be stated that the pleadings contained in para 12, quoted above, do not make out as to in what connection the plaintiff was called upon to pay/deposit the sum of Rs. 90,575/-. Nor it has been specifically averred as to when such amount was paid/deposited by the plaintiff. It be stated that the pleadings contained in para 12, quoted above, do not make out as to in what connection the plaintiff was called upon to pay/deposit the sum of Rs. 90,575/-. Nor it has been specifically averred as to when such amount was paid/deposited by the plaintiff. Though it has been averred that the amount was deposited in the months of April and May 1982, it has not been specified as to what extent of amount was deposited on each occasion. Ex. DW9/A is the copy of the order/notice dated 12.6.1981 imposing a penalty of Rs. 90,575/- upon the plaintiff for illicit felling of trees and the plaintiff was called upon to deposit such amount within thirty days. The plaintiff Uttam Ram while appearing as PW 1 has categorically stated that the amount of Rs. 90,575 was deposited by him in April 1982. This fact is, on the face of it, in variance of the pleadings. 13. Though the plaintiff Uttam Ram while appearing as PW 1 has denied having received the order/notice Ex. DW 9/A calling upon him to deposit the penalty of Rs. 90,575/- for illicit felling, PW 10 Het Ram who at the relevant time was the Manager of the plaintiff, apart from stating that the amount of Rs. 90,575/- was deposited under protest, has proved on the record letter Ex. PW 10/B dated 25.8.1981 wherein after making reference to the demand of Rs. 90,575/- it has been stated that such amount was being deposited under protest. The evidence of PW 10 read with PW 10/B proves that notice Ex. Dw 9/A was in fact received by the plaintiff. Further Ex. PW 10/B shows the amount of Rs. 90,575/- as having been deposited in August 1981 which belies the version of the plaintiff that such amount was deposited in April 1982. Since the amount of Rs. 90,575/- is shown to have been deposited only in August 1981, the present suit having been filed on 6.6.1985 qua this relief is also barred by time. 14. The case can be looked into from another angle. The timber alleged to have been extracted from the illicitly felled trees were seized in terms of the orders dated 12.6.1981 Ex. DW 9/C of the Divisional Forest Officer, Chamba, defendant No. 5. Similarly, the order imposing penalty of Rs. 14. The case can be looked into from another angle. The timber alleged to have been extracted from the illicitly felled trees were seized in terms of the orders dated 12.6.1981 Ex. DW 9/C of the Divisional Forest Officer, Chamba, defendant No. 5. Similarly, the order imposing penalty of Rs. 90,575/- for illicit felling of trees was also imposed by defendant No. 5 on 12.6.1981 under order Ex. DW 9/A. The two reliefs, as at (a) and (b) cannot be possibly granted unless and until the said two orders dated 12.6.1981, Ex. Dw 9/A and DW 9/ C are set aside. 15. Article 100, Limitation Act, 1963, prescribes period of limitation of one year for a suit to alter or set aside an order of the officer of the Government in his official capacity. 16. In Vishwanath Singh Beharisingh Thakur v. The State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1968 M.P. 212, the plaintiff therein was awarded a contract to fell and remove trees in Government forest. The Conservator of Forests imposed a penalty on the plaintiff for having indulged in illicit felling of trees and on 16.6.1951 made an order prohibiting the plaintiff from felling the trees till the amount of penalty was paid. The plaintiff preferred an appeal before the Chief Conservator of Forests against the order of imposition of penalty and prohibiting him from felling trees. The Chief Conservator of Forests on 28.11.1955 set aside the order imposing the penalty. He, however, did not permit the plaintiff to fell the trees. Further appeal preferred by the plaintiff to the State Government was dismissed on 29.5.1957. The plaintiff, thereafter, filed a civil suit on 23.6.1958 claiming compensation for the breach of the contract. It was averred that the cause of action arose on 28.11.1955 when the Chief Conservator of Forests refused to permit him to fell the trees and afterwards on 29.5.1957 when his further appeal to the State Government was dismissed. 17. It was held that the suit was time-barred since the cause of action had arisen to the plaintiff on 16.61951 when the plaintiff was stopped for the first time by the Conservator of Forests from felling the trees. 18. 17. It was held that the suit was time-barred since the cause of action had arisen to the plaintiff on 16.61951 when the plaintiff was stopped for the first time by the Conservator of Forests from felling the trees. 18. The Supreme Court in Ajudh Raj and others v. Moti, AIR 1991 SC 1600, has held:— "The principle for deciding the question of limitation in a suit filed after an adverse order under a Special Act is well settled, if the order impugned in the suit is such that it has to be set aside before any relief can be granted to the plaintiff the provisions of Article 100 will be attracted and if no particular Article of the Limitation Act is applicable the suit must be governed by the residuary Article 113, prescribing a period of three years. Therefore, in a suit for title to an immovable property which has been the subject-matter of a proceeding under a Special Act if an adverse order comes in the way of the success of the plaintiff, he must get it cleared before proceeding further. On the other hand if the order has been passed without jurisdiction, the same can be ignored as nullity, that is, non-existent in the eye of law and it is not necessary to set it aside; and such a suit will be covered by Article 65." It is not the case of the plaintiff that the two orders dated 12.6.1981 as contained in Ex. DW 9/A and Ex. DW 9/C have been passed by defendant No. 5 without jurisdiction and, as such, the same could be ignored as nullity and non-existent. The plaintiff, therefore, before he can be granted the reliefs, is required to have the said orders set aside. The suit having been filed after about five years of such orders is thus barred by time. 19. A feeble attempt was made by the learned Counsel for the plaintiff to contend that the two reliefs have arisen out of a contract between the parties and have been claimed as balance due on a mutual, open and current account falling within the ambit of Article 1, Limitation Act, 1963. 20. There is no force in the contention of learned Counsel for the plaintiff. Suffice to say, that there are no averments in the plaint in this regard. 20. There is no force in the contention of learned Counsel for the plaintiff. Suffice to say, that there are no averments in the plaint in this regard. Nor any proper foundation for the applicability of Article 1, Limitation Act, 1963 has been laid. In view of the above discussion, it Is held that the suit is not within time. The issue is decided against the plaintiff. Issues No. 1 and 3 to 7. 21. In view of the findings recorded under issue No. 2 above, all these issues have become redundant and, as such, no specific findings need be recorded there under. Relief. As a result, the present suit fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. The parties are, however, left to bear their own costs. Suit dismissed.