Judgment ( 1. ) THIS first appeal is filed by the defendant (State) under Section 96 of cpc against the judgment and decree dated 23-4-1985, passed by learned additional District Judge, Kukshi, District, Dhar in C. S. No. 15-A of 1983. ( 2. ) THE issue involved in suit and now in appeal is legal and short one. Indeed, as rightly urged by the learned Counsel for the respondent it is in fact covered in favour of respondent (plaintiff) by a Division Bench decision ahmadji Vs. State, reported in AIR 1986 MP 1 . ( 3. ) A suit was filed by the plaintiff for release of his Truck bearing no. CPF 8081 which was seized/confiscated by the forest authorities on 13-4-1982 by invoking powers under Section 55 of the Forest Act. The Trial court by impugned judgment/decree decreed the suit and inter alia directed the forest authorities (defendants) to release the Truck in plaintiffs favour. It is against this decree, the defendant has come up in first appeal. ( 4. ) HEARD Ku. Seema Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer for appellant state and Shri M. L. Agrawal, learned Counsel for respondents. ( 5. ) IT is not in dispute that confiscation of Truck was done on 13-4-1982 by the Forest Authorities under the Forest Act. It was held by this court in the case of Ahmadji (supra), that prior to 1-11-1983 there was no power of confiscation conferred under Section 55 of Forest Act (as amended by M. P. Amendment Act ). However, this power was conferred on the forest authorities only by amendment which was brought into force w. e. f. 1-11- 1983. Prior to 1-11-1983 such power was with the Court (Magistrate) trying the offence under the Act. This position was changed by amendment. ( 6. ) IN the present case, the confiscation was prior to 1983 and it was by forest authorities. So the case will squarely covered by the ratio of Ahmadji (supra) and was rightly decreed by the Trial Court. There was no scope for the defendant (State authorities) to have filed appeal in such case where the question was only in relation to seizure/confiscation of a Truck seized in the year 1982. It is now 21 years that this litigation is pending but for no subsisting interest really involving in it to either side. There was no scope for the defendant (State authorities) to have filed appeal in such case where the question was only in relation to seizure/confiscation of a Truck seized in the year 1982. It is now 21 years that this litigation is pending but for no subsisting interest really involving in it to either side. Since the legal question stands already answered by this Court in Ahamadjis case (supra), against the State and hence, I find no merit in this appeal, which does not involve any triable question. In view of this, the question whether plaintiff led any evidence in support of case and whether it caused any prejudice has no substance. It is much more when it was a case where all facts were admitted as also all documents filed by the plaintiff were admitted by defendant and lastly they were also exhibited as proved documents. What was needed to be done was only application of legal issue which as stated supra stood answered against the defendant. ( 7. ) AS a consequence of aforesaid decision, the appeal fails and is dismissed. First Appeal dismissed.