IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA. RSA No.389 of 2008 Date of Decision : December 15, 2009 Mahendra Pal …Appellant Versus: H.P. State Forest Corporation & Anr. …Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No For the appellant : Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Vir Bahadur Verma, Advocate Sanjay Karol, J. (oral) It is the plaintiff’s regular second appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, assailing the judgment and decree dated 21.6.2008 passed by the District Judge, Shimla in Civil Appeal No. 45-S/13 of 2007, affirming the judgment and decree dated 29.11.2006 passed by the Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Shimla in Civil Suit No. 37/1 of 2001/1999. The appellant is the plaintiff and the respondents are the defendants and are referred to as such. The Courts below by way of concurrent findings of fact have dismissed the plaintiff’s suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.40,610.00. 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 The plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of Rs.40,610.00 along with interest @ 16.5% per annum w.e.f. 1.3.1999 as royalty from the Kutlehar Forests in the State of Himachal Pradesh. The management of the Kutlehar Forests had been entrusted by the State of Himachal Pradesh to the plaintiff on certain terms and conditions, including payment of royalty. The forest was taken over by the State Government under the H.P. Kutlehar Forests (Acquisition of Management) Act, 1992. With respect to the year 1994-95, Rs.24,697/- was claimed by the plaintiff as royalty due from the defendants. Interest thereupon amounting to Rs.15,913/- was also claimed. The defendants resisted the suit on the ground that the question of payment of moneys to the plaintiff stood settled by the Apex Court in State of H.P. vs. Raja Mahendra Pal & Ors. (1999) 4 SCC 43 and that the plaintiff was entitled to a total sum of Rs.35,026/- as royalty and sales tax for the year 1994- 95. Rs.24,697/- was payable towards royalty and Rs.10,329/- towards sales tax. However, since the plaintiff had already received Rs.44,855.10 paise, he was liable to refund the balance amount. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the following issues:- “1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount from the defendant as alleged? …OPP 2. Whether the suit is barred by principle of resjudicata? …OPD1 3 3. Whether the suit is bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of parties ? …OPD1 4. Whether the suit is barred by limitation? …OPD1 5. Whether plaintiff has no cause of action? …OPD1 6. Whether defendant No.1 has wrongly released an amount of Rs.44,855.10 in favour of the plaintiff as alleged? …OPD1 7. Relief.” The trial Court found the plaintiff to have received certain payment pursuant to the orders passed by the Apex Court. The defendant No.1 was entitled to adjust the amount due and payable to the plaintiff from the same and consequently dismissed the suit as no other amount was payable to the plaintiff. The first Appellate Court upheld the findings and the reasons furnished by the Court below. The appeal stands admitted on the following substantial questions of law:- “1. Whether the learned lower Appellate Court being last Court of fact is right in not discussing the entire oral as well as documentary evidence adduced by the parties as required of it in view of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in (2000) 5 SCC page 652? 2. Whether the impugned judgment and decree is the result of complete misreading as well as mis- interpretation of the judgment of Hon’ble Apex 4 Court in Civil Appeal No. 9495 of 1995, decided on 31st March, 1999, titled: State of H. P. vs. Shri Mahinder Pal? 3. Whether the impugned judgment and decree is the result of non-consideration of Ex.PW-1/A to Ext.PW-1/F? Mr. Ramakant Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant has made submissions in support of his contentions on the substantial questions of law. Mr. Vir Bahadur Verma, learned counsel for the respondent has supported the judgment for the reasons set out therein. The Apex Court in State of Rajasthan vs. Harphool Singh (dead) through his LRs (2000) 5 SCC 652 has held that it is expected of the Appellate Court to critically analysis, with objective consideration the record and not mechanically affirm the findings of the trial Court. In support of his claim the plaintiff examined himself as PW-1. The defendants examined two witnesses, namely, Shri Gurmeet Singh (DW-1) and Shri K. S. Kanwar (DW-2). In my considered view, the lower Appellate Court has discussed the entire evidence produced by the parties (oral and documentary) while arriving at its conclusion. This is evidently clear from paras 14, 15 & 16 of the impugned judgment. Hence, it cannot be said that the lower Appellate Court arrived at its conclusions without discussing the material 5 on record. Substantial questions of law No.1 is answered accordingly. Ext.PW-1/A is the memorandum and article of association of the defendants’ Corporation. Ext.PW-1/B is the Notification dated 18.5.1974. Ext.PW-1/C is the letter dated 20.11.1998 written by the defendant No.1 to the Principal, Chief Conservator of Forests. Ext.PW-1/D is the legal notice dated 14.12.1998 sent on behalf of the plaintiff to the defendant. These documents do not advance the case of the plaintiff at all. The question of payment of Royalty stands settled by the Apex Court in Raja Mahendra Pal (supra). The defendant No.1 in terms of letter dated 8.6.1999 Ext.D-1 asked the plaintiff to refund a sum of Rs.9,829.10. The said letter is reflective of the fact that the plaintiff had in fact received Rs.44,855/- from the defendant No.1, who was seeking refund of Rs.9,829.10 after adjustment of the amount due and payable by the defendant No.1 to the plaintiff. However, in terms of letter dated 16.6.1999 (Ext.D-2), while admitting the receipt of the amount from the defendant No.1, plaintiff disputed the refund of the same. But the fact of the matter is that the amount stood paid to the plaintiff. The Court below has rightly appreciated the ratio of law laid down by the Apex Court in Raja Mahendra Pal (supra). The judgment is clear as for extension fee, interest, interest on interest, payment of out shaped illicit blazes and damages cannot be held to be covered by the term “royalty” as used in 6 Item No. VIII of the proceedings of the Pricing Committee and , as such, the plaintiff was entitled only to such benefits to which a Forest Officer was entitled. The entitlement of the plaintiff in the present case was restricted only to the extent of sharing of the royalty and not for any thing more and, as such, extension fee, interest, interest on interest and payment for damage caused cannot be included within the ambit of term “royalty”. Thus, the plaintiff was not entitled to get interest claimed by him or interest on such interest or the amount of damages which were received by him, the amount of which comes to Rs.44,855.10 paise. The defendant No.1, therefore, was well within its right to adjust the amount payable to the plaintiff from the amount already released to him. The substantial questions of law No.2 & 3 are answered accordingly. There is no illegality or irregularity in the impugned judgment. The Courts below have correctly appreciated the material in its entirety. For the aforesaid reasons, the appeal is accordingly dismissed. December 15, 2009. (Sanjay Karol) (rana) Judge.