- (1.) THIS is a plaintiff's ap peal arising out of a suit for 'compensation for false imprisonment.
(2.) PLAINTIFF 's case was that the de fendants, one of whom was the Tahsil Baqi Amin and the other Collection Amin, forcib ly took him inside the Tahsil, kept him con fined there on the plea that he was in arrears of land revenue and abused him. The plain tiff also pleaded that he was in arrears of revenue. The defendants' case was that they did not use any force or abusive language as alleged by the plaintiff and that the plain tiff had voluntarily gone to the Tahsil and stayed there while he was questioned about the payment of revenue. Trial Court accepted the defen dants' version and dismissed the suit. Lower appellate Court has not accepted the findings of fact recorded by the trial Court but has dismissed the suit. It arrived at the finding of fact that the plaintiff's version was correct and that he had been forcibly taken by these two defendants from the road into the Tahsil. The learned District Judge, however, dis missed the suit on the finding that the plain tiff was in arrears of land revenue.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the respon dents, who are in this case being defended by the State, raised a preliminary ground that the suit was barred by limitation. Ac cording to him Art. 2 of the Limitation Act was applicable. Article 2 runs as under: "For compensation for doing or for omitting to do an act alleged to be in pursuance of any enact ment in force for the time being in India. Ninety When the act or days. omission takes place." ;