M.C.JAIN, J. - (1.) THIS is a civil second appeal by the State of Rajasthan against the judgment and decree dated 6 -9 -1967 passed by the Civil Judge, Sojat, upholding the judgment and decree dated 31 -7 -1965 passed by the Munsif, Jaitaran, whereby the State of Rajasthan was restrained from effecting recovery of Rs. 990.72P. from the plaintiffs Ganesh Mal and Sohanlal.
(2.) THE plaintiffs' case, in brief, was that the plaintiffs were appointed agents for the storage and sales of food grains by the then Jodhpur Government under an agreement Ex. 1. The Government supplied 1540 'maunds wheat and 1,116 'maunds Gujji of the value of Rs. 31, 269/5/4. The plaintiffs were to be paid commission @ Rs. 1/10/ - per maund. The Plaintiffs after deducting their commission amounting to Rs. 4, 316/ - deposited the price of grain amounting to Rs. 26,953/5/4 in the Treasury through challans in two installments. When the commission bill was insisted by the Government, there was found a total shortage of Maunds 61.0 5 wheat and Maunds 32 -33 - 11 of Gujji. The Government allowed shortage (Chhijat) to the extent of four 'chhatanks' per maund. After allowing this shortage, the excess shortage came to Maunds 51 30 -9 in wheat and Maunds 25 32 -14 in Gujji. The Govt. there upon made the following claim: (1) Refund of commission charged on total Chhijatof Maunds 93 -34 -0 @ Rs. 1/10/ - per maund - - Rs. 152/2/3(2) Cost of excess Ghhijat of Maunds 51 -30 -9 inwheat @ Rs. 13/4/3 per maund. - - Rs. 686/11/ -(3) Cost of excess Cbhijat of Maunds 25 -32 -14 inGujji @ Rs. 10/5/ - per maund. - - Rs. 258/14/3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -Total : - Rs. 1,097/11/6 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Out of this amount Godown charges amounting to Rs. 107/ - were allowed to the plaintiffs and a balance of Rs. 990/11/6 was found to be due from the plaintiffs It was alleged that no amount is due from the plaintiffs and the Government is proceeding to recover the money by adopting coercive process after initiation of proceedings under the Rajasthan Public Demand Recovery Act, 1952 (Act No. V of 1952) (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). It was alleged that the plaintiff received a notice under Section 6 of the Act and they submitted a petition denying liability, but to no effect. Two months' notice was served on the Government and thereafter a suit was instituted for rendition of account and for permanent injunction restraining the State from effecting the alleged recovery from the plaintiffs. The State of Rajasthan submitted its written statement in which it was asserted that the demand was legitimately due from the plaintiffs and the proceedings were rightly initiated against them. An objection was also taken that suit ought to have been instituted under Section 20 of the Act within the time mentioned therein, but it is barred by time. Other legal objections were also raised and it was prayed that the plaintiffs' suit be dismissed with costs and special costs may be allowed
(3.) ON the pleadings of the parties as many as ten issues were framed Thereafter the evidence of the parties was recorded After hearing the parties, the learned Munsif dismissed the plaintiffs suit for rendition of account and decreed the suit for permanent injunction. The learned Munsif decided issues Nos. 2 and 4 in favour of the plaintiffs and it was found that a sum of Rs. 990 72 P. is not due from the plaintiffs Consequently, the plaintiffs are entitled to the relief of permanent injunction.;