1988 PLP 1117 (MLD)

ABAID ULLAH KHAN, J.‑‑This appeal against the judgment and decree of the learned Civil Judge, Lahore, dated the 24th April, 1983, dismissing the appellant's suit for recovery of Rs.2,07,887.08 as time‑barred arises out of the following circumstances. Doctor Muhammad Daud Khan Tariq, appellant, was an authorised rice dealer and was allowed to store and husk paddy and rice in Haq Rice and General Mills, Sharaqpur Khurd, district Sheikhupura. Regarding stock in hand on a particular date he was required to file report with the Food Department on the following day by 12.00 noon. On the 4th June, 1969, at about 11.00 a.m., the Anti Smuggling Rice and Paddy Staff seized his stock comprising 560 maunds of basmati rice, 106 maunds of broken rice and 337 maunds of paddy and prosecuted him for violation of the provisions of sections 3, 6 and 9 of the Punjab Foodstuffs Control Act, 1958. He was acquitted of the charge levelled against him by the Magistrate on the 1st July, 1971. The Magistrate found the appellant to be innocent because he was to make report by 12.00 noon and checking of stock at 11.00 a.m., did .not saddle, him with any liability. The Magistrate directed that the property (rice and paddy) which had been wrongfully seized be made over to the appellant after the decision of appeal or revision against his order:

2. The appellant sold the rice and paddy which had been restored to him at a price far less than the one prevalent on the 4th June, 1969, and had to suffer a loss of Rs. 24,851.66 and had also to. pay godown, insurance and other charges amounting to Rs.8,085.424n consequence of the seizure of the stock.

3. On the 31st July, '1974; the appellant brought suit for recovery of damages and compensation on account, of seizure of his goods. and their sale at lower price as also .for malicious prosecution.. The suit was contested by the respondents mainly, on the ground that it was time‑barred. The learned trial Court, relying upon Article 23 of the first Schedule. of the Limitation Act, 1908, which prescribes a period of one year for bringing suit for compensation for malicious prosecution; considered the suit to be out of time and dismissed it.

4. In appeal before this Court it was urged that at least the suit to the extent of claim for loss on account of sale of the appellant's goods at, a lesser price and other. charges he had to incur fell under Article 49 of the first Schedule of the Limitation Act, 19418, and was within time. The learned counsel for the respondents could not controvert this contention. No doubt the suit for compensation for malicious prosecution was time‑barred as it had been brought more than a year after the appellant's acquittal and termination of his prosecution yet the suit for compensation‑ for wrongful seizure and detention of the appellant's property was well within time. The appellant's claim in this behalf to the tune of Rs.32,937.08, in the absence of any evidence in rebuttal from the respondents' side, cannot but be taken to be valid. The appeal is partially accepted and the decree of the learned trial Court is modified to the extent that the appellant's suit for realization of Rs.32,937.08 is decreed with proportionate costs throughout. AA./M‑753/L Appeal partly accepted.