A.K.Sinha, J. - (1.) This appeal is preferred by the plaintiff-appellant against a judgment and decree dismissing its suit for recovery of damages against State of West Bengal and some of its Officer, briefly in the circumstances as follows:
(2.) The plaintiff which is a firm registered under the Indian Partnership Act consisting of Bhimraj Somani, Hardwari Mal Somani, Om Prakash Somani, all partners and one Satya Narayan Somani, a minor admitted to the benefits of the partnership firm--all sons of the Kanhaiyalal Somani since deceased was carrying on business in Cooch Behar On 27th April, 1957, the defendant-respondent No. 1 -- a Police Officer -- with a number of Police Constables wrongfully and forcibly entered into the business premises of the appellant and obtained possession of several godowns and locked and scaled up the entire premises including various books, papers and goods worth Rs. 27,5000-0-0 under a purported order of attachment dated 26-4-1957 issued against Bhimraj Somani, one of the partners in a criminal case. The order of attachment, it is further alleged, was preceded by an order of proclamation made on 26-4-1957 against Bhimraj Somani declaring him to be absconding with a direction to appear in the Court of Sub-Divisional Officer, Cooch Behar, to answer the charges against him in a criminal case. Such order of proclamation and the order of attachment pursuant thereto and the execution of writ of attachment in the manner indicated above are said to be all illegal, inoperative and void and as a result thereof the appellant has suffered damages on account of loss of business with various parties and also business profits etc. to the extent of Rs. 74,582.87 np. which they are entitled to recover from the defendants-respondents.
(3.) The first respondent, Officer-in-charge of a Cooch Behar Police Station at the material time, the second respondent. Superintendent of Police, Cooch Behar and the third respondent, the State of West Bengal filed separate written statements and contested the suit. Apart from the general denial of all material allegations in the plaint their case substantially is that ths suit was barred by limitation and as framed is not maintainable and the order of proclamation and attachment and the execution of writ of attachment were all legal and valid and the properties of the firm were rightly attached under the order of attachment issued by the Magistrate and the first respondent acted bona fide in discharging his official duty in executing such writ of attachment issued by the Court for attachment of the property of the absconding accused Bhimraj Somani. It was further asserted by the first respondent that in spite of his requests to the persons present to give him separate possession of the share of the accused Bhimraj Somani, they failed to do so and he had no other alternative than to lock the godown.;