Goswami, J. - (1.) Civil Appeal No. 1868 of 1967. This is an appeal by certificate of the Allahabad High Court under Article 133 (1) (a) of the Constitution. The appellant is the plaintiff, the Municipal Board, Lucknow (hereafter briefly the Board). The Board instituted a Civil Suit being numbered 25 of 1953 in the Court of Civil Judge, Lucknow, on 4th March, 1953, against seven defendants. The Board prayed for a decree for accounts to be passed against the defendants after their rendering of accounts, a decree for such amount as may be found due or in the alternative a decree for the sum of Rs. 69,642/6/6 against defendants. The written statements were filed on behalf of defendants 1 to 3, 5 and 7. Defendants 4 and 6 admittedly migrated to Pakistan and their property by the custodian under the Administration of Evacuee Property Act, who was impleaded as defendant No. 7. 14 issues were framed and only the following two issues were taken up for preliminary hearing:"Issue No. 6: Is the suit not maintainable as alleged in paragraph 22( ) of the written statement of defendant No. 1 Issue No 9: Is the suit on the ground of negligence barred by limitation -
(2.) The Civil Judge answered both the issues against the Board. The High Court, in appeal, decided issue No. 6 in favour of the Board and we are not concerned with the same in this appeal. With regard to issue No. 9 the High Court set aside the judgment of the Civil Judge relating to defendants 1 to 3 and held that the suit was not barred by limitation against those three defendants under Section 326 of the U. P. Municipalities Act, 1916. The High Court, however, affirmed the decree of the Civil Judge in respect of defendant No. 5 - Mohd. Yusuf - and held that the suit was barred by limitation as against him under Section 326 of the aforesaid Act.
(3.) The Board had also made an application for review before the High Court with regard to two observations made in the judgment. The High Court accepted the review application with regard to the first observation complained of but declined to review the second observation. Mr. Dikshit, the learned counsel for the appellant now does not press his claim with regard to the second observation before us.;