IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA RSA No. 281 of 2000 Date of decision: 24.07.2010 H.P. State Forest Corporation Ltd. … Appellant Versus Roshan Singh Thakur … Respondent Coram : The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the appellant: Mr. Neel Kamal Sood, Advocate. For the respondent: Mr. Neeraj Gupta, Advocate. V.K. Ahuja, J. (Oral): This is a Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 C.P.C. filed by the appellant Corporation against the judgment and decree passed by the learned District Judge, Shimla, dated 1.6.1999, vide which he allowed the appeal filed by the respondent against the judgment and decree of the Court of learned Sub Judge, Rohru, Camp at Jubbal, dated 14.8.1997, vide which he had decreed the suit for recovery of Rs.52,905/- as against the respondent. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the appellant hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of Rs.52,905/- as against the respondent, hereinafter referred to as the defendant. It was alleged by the plaintiff that he had allotted the work of floating of timber from Bagain Khad to Anti bridge having a 1Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 distance of about 8 Kiolometres. An agreement was executed in between the parties. The work was to be completed before 30.11.1988. The defendant was required to engage at least 40 labourers for the work. However, it was alleged that due to employment of less number of workers and due to work having been proceeded on a slow speed, the defendant failed to achieve the working schedule, as a result of which, the allotment of work was cancelled on 7.3.1989. Fresh tenders were invited and the work was allotted to another contractor and the plaintiff alleged that it had suffered a loss of Rs.52,905/- and as such, he is entitled to the recovery of the amount from the defendant. 3. The defendant pleaded that the work allotted to him was arbitrarily cancelled. It was further pleaded that the work could not be completed because of inclement weather, unusual flood and since D.M. of the plaintiff Corporation had directed the defendant to stop the floating work and stack the timber at highest flood level. It was alleged that due to floods, boulders and trees had accumulated in the Khad. The work could not be completed due to heavy snow fall and due to the directions given by the plaintiff Corporation and as such, they are not entitled to any amount. 4. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were settled by the learned trial Court:- 1. Whether the defendant has not completed the work as assigned to him, as alleged? OPP 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount from the defendant, as alleged? OPP 3. Whether the suit is time barred? OPD 3 4. Whether the defendant has nothing to pay to the plaintiff and the suit amount stood already adjusted by the defendant as alleged? OPD 5. Relief. 5. Parties led their evidence and the learned trial Court vide its impugned findings held that the plaintiff was entitled for recovery of a sum of Rs.52,905/- and the suit of the plaintiff Corporation was decreed alongwith costs and interest. 6. On appeal those findings were set aside by the learned District Judge, Shimla, leading to the dismissal of the suit filed by the plaintiff. An appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the judgment of the Court of learned District Judge. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case. 8. On appraisal of the judgment passed by the learned District Judge, it is clear that it had come to the conclusion that according to the terms of the agreement dated 7.5.1988, the work was to be completed by 30.11.1988. It is on record that a letter dated 24.6.1988 Ext. DW1/B was written by the Divisional Manager of the H.P. State Forest Corporation/plaintiff, directing the defendant to stop the floating work and to stack the timber at a safe place. The defendant vide his letter dated 17.10.1988 Ext. DA and letter dated 30.11.1988 Ext. PW1/G prayed for extension of time to complete the work. According to the terms of the agreement executed in between the parties Ext. PW1/T, the time for completion of work was liable to be extended by another six months by the Divisional Manager, Forest 4 Working Division in exceptional cases. The time could further be extended for another six months by the Director and for further three months by Managing Director, as per Clause 12 (a). 9. The defendant had applied for extension of the time, which permission could be granted by the officers of the Corporation as per the terms and conditions of the agreement. However, they did not grant the permission which appeared to be justified in view of the prayer made and the provisions in the agreement, rather a letter dated 24.6.1988 was written asking the defendant to stop the work. In such circumstances, when the work had been stopped at the instance of the plaintiff Corporation and his prayer for extension of time, for which there was a provision, was declined, it cannot be said that the loss was suffered by the plaintiff Corporation due to act of the defendant. The defendant had led evidence that he has engaged minimum number of labourers as 40 as per the agreement, but no evidence was led by the plaintiff Corporation to rebut this evidence. Even the statement of PW-1 Shri P.C. Sharma did not prove that requisite number of labourers were not deployed by the defendant. 10. In view of the above discussion, it is, therefore, clear that the learned District Judge had come to a right conclusion that the plaintiff Corporation had not suffered loss due to any act of the defendant and as such, the findings recorded by the learned District Judge, do not call for an interference by this Court. 5 11. In view of the above discussion, I accordingly hold that there is no merit in the appeal filed by the plaintiff Corporation, which is dismissed accordingly. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs. ( V.K. Ahuja ), July 24, 2010 Judge (BSS) 6