IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA RSA No. 187 of 1997 Date of Decision:- __2.12.2008 __________________________________________________________ State of H.P. ….Appellant. Versus M/s Ganesh Timber Supply Co. ….Respondent. ___________________________________________________________ Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 __________________________________________________________ For the Appellants: Ms. Ruma Kaushik, Additional Advocate General. For the Respondent No.1: S/Shri Bimal Gupta and Karan Singh Kanwar, Advocates. __________________________________________________________ Dev Darshan Sud, J. This appeal has been preferred by the State against the judgment and decree of the learned Appellate Court reversing the judgment and decree of the learned trial Court. The plaintiff-respondent had instituted a suit against the State praying for injunction by restraining the State from recovering an amount of Rs. 17,221-60 Ps. as arrears of land revenue on account of re-auction of lot No. 7/76- 77. This amount was claimed by the State being the purported loss suffered as re- auctioning of the forest lot previously leased to the respondent-plaintiff. The suit was contested on a number of grounds by the appellant before the trial Court, which dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. 1 Whether reports of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 In appeal, the learned Appellate Court has partly accepted the prayer of the plaintiff-respondent and granted a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the respondent from effecting such recovery. This appeal was admitted on 22.8.1997 on the following questions of law:- 1. Whether there was valid contract between the parties as envisaged under Article 299 of the Constitution of India? 2. That the mis-reading of the documentary as well as oral evidence itself amounts to substantial question of law ? Question No. 2 On the entire re-appreciation of evidence, I have been unable to persuade myself that there is any misreading of documentary or oral evidence. It is not the function of this Court to re-appreciate evidence in second appeal. However, since the appeal was admitted on this question, even on reconsidering the entire evidence and pleadings again, I do not find that there has been any misreading of the documents etc. The learned District Judge has correctly arrived at on the finding that there was non-compliance of the mandatory provisions of Article 299 of the Constitution of India. Question No.1. This point has been dealt with exhaustively by the learned District Judge. The learned Appellate Court rightly holds that the provisions of Article 299 of the Constitution of India are mandatory and the contract between the parties having been signed on 24.6.1977, came into force with effect from that date. Accordingly cancellation of the contract was illegal by ante dating it to a period prior to the time when it has not been signed and accepted by the State. Learned trial Court has relied upon of the judgment of the Supreme Court reported as K.P. Chowdhry Versus State of Madhya Pradesh and others AIR 3 1967 SC 203 and The State of Madhya Pradesh Versus Firm Copichand Sarju Prasad and others AIR 1972 M.P. 43. Learned Additional Advocate General submits that the contract was to be pre dated to the period prior to the time before it was actually signed on behalf of the State. This submission cannot be accepted. The point agitated having been determined correctly both on the facts and law, this question is also decided against the State. Before parting with the case, I must express my anguish in the manner in which for a petty sum of Rs. 17,000/- litigation has been stretched involving State expenses. Of course, at that particular point of time when the case was instituted, there was no bar, but the amendment in the Code of Civil Procedure with the enactment of Section 102, second appeal is barred where original suit for recovery does not exceed Rs. 25,000/-. This appeal is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. December 2, 2008 (Dev Darshan Sud) (ms) Judge