JUDGMENT
Mahinder Narain, J.
(1) The plaintiffs Susheel Saran and M/s. Cine Publicity Cell filed the present suit in this court on 14-8-1978 for the recovery of Rs. 17,90,731.28 p.
(2) As is apparent from I.A. No. 2076 of 1979, an application under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the plaint was deficiently stamped. In this application I.A. No. 2076 of 1979, a prayer was made that for the reasons stated in the application, the plaintiff be permitted to amend the plaint by adding a prayer that he be permitted to sue as an indigent person By an order dated 23-8-1979, the application for amendment was allowed subject to just exceptions. The suit, therefore, became a petition under Order 33 Rule I of the Code of Civil Procedure. On 10-9-1979 notices were issued to the Collector and the Government Pleader. Thereafter an-enquiry was held to find out whether the plaintiff is an indigent person. The Indigent Petition was numbered as I P.A. No. 13 of 1979.
(3) In connection with the Indigent Petition No. 13 of 1977, on 15-9-1981 it was stat ed before th e Deputy Registrar that admission/denial of each others’ documents have been completed and exhibit marks have been given to the admitted documents.
(4) On 25-9-1981, on the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed with respect to the indifferent petition :-
1. Whether there is a proper application under Order 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure for leave to sue as indigent person ?
2.Whether the petition has not been presented in accordance with law? — *** — 3.Whether the petitioner is entitled to sue as indigent person ?
1. Whether this court has territorial jurisdiction to try this suit ?2. Whether the suit is within limitation ?3. Whether there was a subsisting contract expressed or implied turn the display and publicity between the plaintiff and any of the defendants, after 8th June, 1973 onwards ?4. If issue No. 3 is held in favor of the plaintiff, then which one of the defendants is liable to pay for the said display and publicity ?5. Have the defendants or any one of them enjoyed any benefit by display and publicity conducted by the plaintiff after 8th June, 1973. If so, is that defendant bound to make compensation to the plaintiff?6. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any damages as alleged ?7. Relief.
Ex.P.1 : No. 65/4/72-OPV/DA Dated 27-2-1974. M/s. Cine Publicity Cell, Hari Mansion, Road No.-39. Gardani Bagh, Patna-2. Sub : Display of Family Planning Kiosks in Bihar on electric poles Dear Sirs, Family Planning Kiosks on Electric poles displayed by you in Bihar were inspected by us in May and June, 1973 and were found in order at that time as per details given below : Name of District No. of kiosks displayed 1. Saran 108) 2. Champaran 72) Inspected in May, 1973 3. Shahbad 247) 4. Gaya 150) Inspected in May, 1973 5. Ranchi 126) Inspected in June, 1973 6. Hazari Bagh 126) -do- 7. Sharsa 90) -do- 8. Purnia 126) -do- Total 1045 kiosks Yours faithfully, sd/- (A. Seshagiri Rao) Production Manager (OP) for Director
1. Shahbad 140 5. Ranchi 135 2. Gaya 155 6. Hazaribagh 140 3. Sharsa 105 7. Champaran 120 4. Purnia 125 8. Saran 125 “70 Obligation of person enjoying benefit of non-gratuitous act…. Where a person lawfully does anything for another person, or delivers anything to him, not intending to do so gratuitously, and ‘ such other person enjoys the benefit thereof, the latter is bound to make compensation to the former in respect of or to restore the thing so done or delivered.”