JUDGMENT
Rai, J.
1. This appeal by the State of Bihar is directed against the judgment and decree of the Additional Judicial Commissioner of Chota Nagpur reversing those of the Subordinate Judge, Ranchi.
2. Parmeshwar Lal, plaintiff-respondent 1, instituted a suit for compensation against (1) The Governor-General in Council, (2) The Province of Bihar, (3) Mr. R. P. N, Sahi and (4) Mr. B. C. Mukerji.
3. The case of the plaintiff was that under requisition orders dated 27-ll-1943, and 2-12-1943, issued by defendant 3, who was then the Deputy Commissioner of Chota Nagpur, he was directed to hold on behalf of the Government of Bihar his stock of rice weighing 957
maunds 20 seers. On the date when the requisition notice was served, the Government controlled rate for sale of rice was Rs. 15/8/-per maund. On 2-2-1944, Mr. B. C. Mukerji. (defendant 4), the then Deputy Commissioner of Chota Nagpur, issued notification acquiring the said stock of rice under Sub-rule (2) of. R, 75, Defence of India Rules.
On 2-2-1944, the Government controlled rate for rice was Rs. 12/8/- per maund, and it was at this rate that the plaintiff was paid the price for the stock of rice acquired. The plaintifr claimed in the present suit a decree for Rs. 4000/- as per account given at the foot of the plaint, This amount represented the price of the entire stock at the rate of, Rs. 15/8/- per maund minus the amount already paid plus the interest at the rate of one per cent per mensem.
4. Each of the four defendants filed separate written statement with almost similar pleas. They raised amongst others the following pleas. That notices under Section 80, Civil P. C. having not been properly served, the suit was not maintainable. That the present suit was barred by Sections 16 and 17, Defence of India Act. It was further pleaded that the plaintiff was entitled to get for the stock of, rice acquired only at the rate of Rs. 12/8 per maund which had already been paid to him and for which he had granted a receipt of full satisfaction. According to them the plaintiff was not entitled to any relief at all.
5. The trial Court came to the conclusion that the provisions of Section 16, Defence of India Act were a bar to the maintainability of the present action. It also held that the plaintiff was entitled to the price of the stock of rice acquired at the rate of Rs. 12/8 per maund only. On these findings the suit was dismissed with costs payable half and half to defendants 1 and 2. No costs were allowed to defendants 3 and 4.
6. The plaintiff thereafter went in appeal before the Judicial Commissioner of Chota Nagpur, Ranchi. The lower appellate Court, held that the payment made to the plaintiff at the rate of Rs. 12/8 per maund for the acquisition of the rice on 2-2-1944, could not include the compensation which he was entitled to get for the requisition of the stock of rice at a time when the controlled rate for rice was three rupees per maund higher than the rate of acquisition. It further held that under the provisions of Rule 75A, Sub-rule (4), Defence of India Rules the plaintiff was entitled to compensation not only for ‘acquisition’ but also for ‘requisition’ which fact had been ignored altogether by the Government authorities concerned.
The lower appellate Court further held that the provisions of Section 16 or 17, Defence of India Act were no bar to the maintainability of the present suit. On these findings the appeal was allowed and the suit was decreed in part with corresponding costs against the Province of Bihar. The plaintiff was held entitled to compensation at the rate of Rs. 3/- per maund for 957 maunds and 20 seers of rice. He was further granted interest at 6 per cent per annum from the date of the decree up to the date of realisation.
7. In this court, Mr. Government Advo-cate, on behalf of the State of Bihar, contended that the ownership of the stock of rice vested in the State Government only after its acquisition and as such the plaintiff was en-
titled to Rs. 12/8 per maund only which had already been paid to him. He further contended that the provisions of Section 16, Defence of India Act were a bar to the maintainability of the present action. In my opinion, there is no force in either of the contentions of the learned Government Advocate. While issuing the notice of requisition, the Deputy Commissioner had asked the plaintiff to hold the stock of rice on his behalf. Thus by that notification the plaintiff was prevented from disposing of the stock of rice at the Government controlled rate of Rs. 15/8 which was prevalent at that time. Rule 75A (4) provided for grant of compensation for requisition also apart from, compensation for acquisition. The lower appellate Court was, therefore, justified in holding that the compensation for the period during which the stock of rice was held by plaintiff for’and on behalf of the Deputy Commissioner of Ranchi had not been paid to him.
The Court of appeal below has rightly held that omissionj on the part of the relevant Government authorities, to consider the question of compensation for requisitioning the stock of rice was an act of bad faith and was in contravention of the Defence of. India Act and the Defence of India Rules, and as such the provisions of Section 16 or 17, Defence of India Act were not a bar to the maintainability of the present action. I agree with the view taken by the lower appellate Court and hold that the present suit is maintainable. Orders passed under Defence of India Rules were interfered with by civil Courts in the cases of — ‘Kewalram v. The Collector of Madras’, AIR 1944 Mad 285 (A); — ‘Emperor v. Vimalabai Deshpar.de’, AIR 1946 PC 123 (B) and — ‘Tan Bug Taim v. Collector of Bombay’, AIR 1946 Bom 216 at p. 254 (C),
8. The result is that the appeal fails and is dismissed but without costs, as there was no appearance on behalf of the plaintiff at the time of hearing of this appeal.
9. I hereby direct that the State of Bihar
will satisfy the decree passed against it with
in three months from the date of, this judg
ment.