ORDER : This is a first appeal by the defendants of Money Suit No. 11 of 2000 of the Court of learned Additional District Judge at Jorhat. By this judgment the learned trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiff for Rs. 1,12,400/- alongwith interest @ 9% per annum. 2. Respondent No. 1 as plaintiff instituted Money Suit No. 37/1995 in the Court of learned Assistant District Judge, Jorhat on 07.08.1995 stating that defendants entered into contracts with the plaintiff hired the vehicle of the plaintiff vide work orders agreeing pay to Rs. 225/- per day alongwith other charges. At that time Army operation was going on in the State of Assam and so the Deputy Commissioner required the defendants to place some vehicles with him at the material time and thereupon the defendants placed the vehicle of the plaintiff in the custody of the District Administration in the month of November, 1991. The initial work order was renewed from time to time. In the meantime the plaintiff came to know that the vehicle was handed over by the District Administration to the Army personnel in the month of November, 1991 and the vehicle met with an accident on or about 08.04.1992 while in the custody of the Army. Army thereafter left the vehicle to Bhaiti’s garage at Terajan on 20.04.1992. The plaintiff after great difficulty made payment of Rs. 44,000/- for repair of the vehicle which remained idle for nearly 10 months. The defendants thereafter again took over the vehicle on request by the plaintiff on hire and thereafter placed the vehicle again with Bhogdir Outpost and it remained in the custody of the police from 04.04.1994 to 30.11.1994 to which effect In-charge of the Bhogdir Outpost issued a certificate on 11.08.1994. On the other hand, by a letter dated 05.07.1994 the defendants asked the plaintiff to place the vehicle in the custody of the ONGC within 3 days failing which the same would stand dehired. Because of such paradoxical stand of the defendants, plaintiff issued a pleader’s notice to the defendants asking them to make payment of the repairing charges alongwith hire charges but the defendants by reply dated 04.11.1992 simply attempted to shift the responsibility to the State Government. Because of such paradoxical stand of the defendants, plaintiff issued a pleader’s notice to the defendants asking them to make payment of the repairing charges alongwith hire charges but the defendants by reply dated 04.11.1992 simply attempted to shift the responsibility to the State Government. The plaintiff thereafter submitted a representation on 29.03.1995 to the defendants, however, to no avail and under such circumstances plaintiff has been compelled to institute the suit for realisation of Rs. 1,84,000/- alongwith interest @ 18% per annum etc. On being summoned the defendants No. 1, 2 & 3 submitted written statement and denied the claim of the plaintiff. It was stated that the vehicle was requisitioned by Deputy Commissioner for use during Operation RHINO. It met with an accident at Nagaon on 08.04.1992 while under custody of Army and thereafter the vehicle was handed over to the plaintiff by S.D.O. (Civil), Jorhat on 20.04.1992 in damaged condition. Amount of compensation and repairing charges, therefore, are liable to be paid by the Government and not by the ONGC. It was further stated that under the terms and conditions of the contract, defendants are not liable to make any payment except the hire charges. It was also stated that the suit is bad for non-compliance of Section 80 CPC etc. 3. Upon such rival contentions of the parties, the learned trial Court framed as many as 6 issues and the same are quoted below: 1. Whether there is cause of action for the suit? 2. Whether the suit is time barred? 3. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties? 4. Whether the vehicle No. AS-03/1084 was requisitioned from the custody of the plaintiff or defendants? 5. Whether the defendants are liable for the claim of the plaintiff? 6. To what other relief/reliefs the parties are entitled to? 4. In course of trial, the plaintiff examined himself as PW1 and exhibited as many as 29 documents in all. The defendants cross-examined the plaintiff but did not lead any evidence from their side. Thereafter the learned trial Court by impugned judgement and decree dated 18.08.2003 decreed the suit in entirety holding that the suit is not bad for non-joinder of parties, as, neither State of Assam nor Union of India is necessary party in this case. The defendants cross-examined the plaintiff but did not lead any evidence from their side. Thereafter the learned trial Court by impugned judgement and decree dated 18.08.2003 decreed the suit in entirety holding that the suit is not bad for non-joinder of parties, as, neither State of Assam nor Union of India is necessary party in this case. The learned trial Court further held that although the hire period expired on 31.03.1992 yet the same should be deemed to be in possession of the defendants because they did not hand over the vehicle to the plaintiff in the same condition as it was at the time of hiring and so the defendants are not only liable to make payment of the repairing charges but also to make payment for the period when the vehicle remained idle in the garage. Thus claim of Rs. 44,000/- towards repairing charges and Rs. 68,400/- towards compensation during the vehicle was in garage stood decreed alongiwth interest @ 9% per annum till realisation. It is this judgment which has been brought under challenge in the present appeal by the defendants. 5. I have heard Mr. P.K. Roy, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. H. G. Baruah, learned counsel for the plaintiff/Respondent No. 1. I have also heard Mr. G. Sarma, learned counsel on behalf of Respondent No. 3. None appears for the Union of India. 6. In the suit, plaintiff stated that he purchased the Ambassador Car bearing Registration No. AS03-1084 by taking Financial Assistance from Assam Co-operative Apex Bank Ltd., Teok Branch. The defendants by work order dated 01.01.1992 took the vehicle on hire. In course of evidence the work order dated 01.01.1992 has been instituted as Ext.-1. It appears from Ext.-1 that the work order was for a period of 3 months w.e.f. 01.01.1992 to 30.04.1992. The learned trial Court observed that in all the work orders which were exhibited or brought on record the defendants took the vehicle on hire for 3 months on each count and so 30.04.1992 should have actually be written as 31.03.1992. The learned trial Court was of the view that the vehicle ceased to remain on hire on 01.04.1992. The vehicle met with an accident on 08.04.1992 when admittedly the Ext.-1 was not in force. The learned trial Court was of the view that the vehicle ceased to remain on hire on 01.04.1992. The vehicle met with an accident on 08.04.1992 when admittedly the Ext.-1 was not in force. But according to the learned trial Court the defendants were duty bound to handover the vehicle to the owner (plaintiff) after expiry of the hire period and this not having been done in terms of Section 160 of the Indian Contract Act, the vehicle should be deemed to be in the legal possession of the defendants. It is, therefore, held that the defendants are liable to make payment of the repairing charges as well as compensation for the period when the vehicle remained idle in the garage. But in the pliant itself the fact as to requisition of the vehicle by the State was disclosed by the plaintiff. Plaintiff stated that the District Magistrate wanted the defendants to place the vehicle in the custody of the Deputy Commissioner for use by Army during Operation RHINO and defendants placed the vehicle in question in the custody of the District Administration. Moreover it is the case of the plaintiff that the vehicle met with an accident on 08.04.1992 when under custody of the Army. Thereafter the plaintiff got the custody of the damage vehicle on 20.04.1992 from S.D.O. (Civil) of Jorhat. Thus it has come on record from the pleadings of the parties that the vehicle was requisitioned by the Government under Section 3 of the Assam Requisition and Control of Vehicles Act, 1968. This being the position the points for determination that falls for consideration in this appeal are as follows: 1. Whether State of Assam and Union of India is necessary parties? 2. Whether plaintiff is entitled to compensation and repairing charges from the plaintiff or from the State Government? 7. Section 3 of the Assam Requisition & Control of Vehicle Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred as ‘the Act’) provides that State Government can requisition a vehicle if it is necessary or expedient for purpose essential to the life or the community or for maintaining public order or for facility of public transport. Clause (2) of this Section provides that Government may requisition any vehicle by serving on the owner or where the owner is not traceable by publication in the official gazette an order to that effect. Clause (2) of this Section provides that Government may requisition any vehicle by serving on the owner or where the owner is not traceable by publication in the official gazette an order to that effect. Even after service or publication of such notices if the vehicle is not placed to the possession of the officer in that event an officer or authority may seize the vehicle from any person who may for the time being be in possession thereof. Thus it appears that power of requisition of the Government to requisition a vehicle under the Act is such that once a requisition is made the possessor or owner of the vehicle is duty bound to comply with the order as otherwise the same could be seized by the authority for the essential purpose. As per the averments made in the plaint the purpose for requisition of the vehicle was Operation RHINO in force in the State at that time which evidently was an exercise for internal security of the country. That being the position plaintiff cannot grudge the action of the defendants in handing over the vehicle or allowing the vehicle to be requisitioned by the Government. Handing over of the vehicle by the defendants, therefore, was Hobson’s choice for the defendants. Once the plaintiff admitted that the vehicle in question was under requisition by the Government and put in use by Army or Police automatically involvement of the State of Assam as well as Union of India become apparent. The Act not only provides for the provision for the requisition of vehicle but also it provides for the mechanism for payment of compensation and release of the vehicle from requisition. Section 4 of the Act deals with payment of compensation whereas Section 5 deals with release from requisition. Section 5(2) of the Act provides that the officer or authority making the requisition is also liable to make payment on account of compensation for any material damage done to the vehicle during the period of requisition. Clause (3) of Section 5 requires that the authority is to deliver the vehicle to the owner or his accredited agent and on such delivery there would be full discharge of any liability of the State Government. Clause (3) of Section 5 requires that the authority is to deliver the vehicle to the owner or his accredited agent and on such delivery there would be full discharge of any liability of the State Government. This means that State Government continues to be liable to pay compensation for the vehicle unless and until the possession thereof is handed over by the State to the owner or its accredited agent. As per the pleadings of the parties, the vehicle was handed over to the plaintiff by the requisitioning authority on 20.04.1992 and so till that date the State of Assam was liable to make payment for compensation. The State of Assam being liable under Section 4 & 5 of the Act to make payment of compensation to the owner and to deliver the vehicle to owner, the State of Assam is a necessary party in the suit. The finding of the learned trial Court, therefore, deserves to reversed and accordingly reversed. 8. It is also not in dispute that State of Assam requisitioned the vehicle in question for use by Army at a given point of time. This being the position Union of India is be a necessary party in the suit. Accordingly the suit will be not maintainable unless State of Assam as well as Union of India is impleaded as party defendants. 9. At this stage, Mr. H.G. Barua, learned counsel for the respondent/ plaintiff submits that it is not in dispute that the vehicle was under requisition of the State and that the vehicle was damaged while in custody of the Government. The vehicle is the sole source for bread earning of the plaintiff and if the appeal is allowed holding the suit not to be maintainable at this stage it will be prejudice to the plaintiff and so it would be proper in the fitness of things to remand the suit to the trial Court for giving an opportunity to the plaintiff to implead State of Assam and Union of India. Mr. P.K. Roy, learned counsel for the appellant does not have any objection to such prayer. 10. In course of cross-examination PW1 himself admitted that he made claim before the State Government demanding compensation not only for damage but also for the period when the vehicle was in idle condition. Mr. P.K. Roy, learned counsel for the appellant does not have any objection to such prayer. 10. In course of cross-examination PW1 himself admitted that he made claim before the State Government demanding compensation not only for damage but also for the period when the vehicle was in idle condition. Under the provisions of the Act, State Government is duty bound to make payment of compensation and if the owner is not satisfied with the amount given by the Government in that event owner is at liberty to pray for a reference to Court under Section 6 of the Act. Admittedly, in this case the vehicle was under requisition and no payment was made by the State. The Act does not have any provision either expressly or impliedly ousting jurisdiction of the Civil Court. Apart from that even in a case when jurisdiction of Civil Court is specifically ousted, in that event a suit shall lie if the provision of the Act is not complied with. Here in this case the Government does not appear to have complied with the provision of Section 4 & 5 of the Act by not paying the damage and compensation to the owner. This being the position, the plaintiff has cause of action against the State of Assam and the Union of India for getting his damage. Since the plaintiff made a representation to the Government making payment for money under Section 4 & 5 of the Act there has been substantial compliance of sending statutory notice to the authority. In that view of the matter, the objection raised by the defendants No. 1, 2 & 3 as to non-compliance of Section 80 CPC shall not arise. This finding of the learned trial Court, is therefore, upheld. 11. On consideration of totality of circumstances, the appeal stands allowed. The impugned judgment and decree is set aside and the case is remanded to the learned trial Court with liberty to the plaintiff to impleade State of Assam and Union of India as party defendants. The learned trial Court shall decide the suit afresh after giving adequate opportunity to all the parties to lead their respective evidence both oral and documentary. Since the issue in regard to Section 80 CPC has already been conclusively decided, no issue shall be required to be framed on this count. 12. The appeal stands partly allowed. 13. The learned trial Court shall decide the suit afresh after giving adequate opportunity to all the parties to lead their respective evidence both oral and documentary. Since the issue in regard to Section 80 CPC has already been conclusively decided, no issue shall be required to be framed on this count. 12. The appeal stands partly allowed. 13. No order as to costs.