C.B.BHARGAVA, J. - (1.) THOUGH these two appeals arise out of two different suitsInstituted by two different persons, they are being disposed of by one common judgment because they raise common questions of law and fact. Appeal No. 117 of 1958.
(2.) THIS is a plaintiff's appeal against the judgment and decree of the Senior Civil Judge. Baran, dated 28th August, 1958. dismissing the suit for recovery of Rs. 13,200A. In short, the plaintiffs case in the Court below was that the officers of the Civil Supplies Department of the State of Rajasthan procured gram from, the plaintiff from 7th April, 1953, to 3rd September. 1953, as shown in Schedule 1 attached with the plaint in pursuance of the latter part of Clause 5 regarding taking of 40% of gram @ Rs. 10/ - per Md. of the Rajasthan Gram and Gram Products (Export Control) Order. 1953 published in the Rajasthan Gazette Extraordinary dated 27th March. 1953, and Jowar from 23rd January 1953 to 28th February, 1953, as shown in Schedule 2 in pursuance of clause 6 of the Rajasthan Foodgrains (Rabi) Monopoly Procurement Order, 1952, published in the Rajasthan Gazette Extraordinary dated 12th April. 1952, and wheat from il5th May, 1953 to 4th June, 1953, as shown in Schedule 3 in pursuance of clauses 4 and 5 of the Rajasthan Food -grains (Rabi) Procurement Order. 1953, published in the Rajasthan Gazette Extraordinary dated 11th March, 1953. It is alleged that these foodgrains were procured by the State of Rajasthan from the plaintiff at prices which were much below the prices obtaining in the free market on the relevant dates as a result of which the plaintiff sustained damages. It is alleged that the aforesaid Procurement orders were ultra vires of the Constitution of India being hit by Article 31(2) thereof, because the law, that is the Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act. 1946 (hereinafter called the Act) did not contain any provision for payment of compensation for the property taken possession of or acquired nor fixed the amount of compensation or the principles on which and the manner in which the compensation was to be determined and given. Some other grounds also challenging the validity of the aforesaid procurement orders were alleged but it is not necessary to mention them In detail because in this Court, the chief ground canvassed is that the procurement orders are violative of Article 31(2) of the Constitution for the reasons stated above. It is alleged that as a result of this illegal acquisition of foodgrains by the officers of the State from the plaintiff, he sustained a loss of Rs. 11.226A as shown in Schedules 1. 2 and 3. The plaintiff also claimed interest on the aforesaid amount as the State in spite of notice being served upon it under S. 89, CivilP. C. did not make that payment. Thus the suit was filed for the total sum of Rs. 13,200/ -.
(3.) THE State of Rajasthan In its written statement raised a number of pleas including the bar of limitation and the present suit being barred because of the provisions of Order 2, Rule 2, Civil P. C. It was also stated that the aforesaid procurement orders were quite valid and did not violate Article 31(2) of the Constitution because the orders contained provisions for payment of compensation and as a matter of fact fixed the amount of compensation to be paid to the plaintiff for the procurement of food -grains.;