(1.) Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.
(2.) The second appeal arises out of the judgment and decree passed by the 1st Additional Civil Judge, Meerut, dated 17.8.1987 by which the suit filed by the plaintiffs for injunction has been decreed. Suit was filed alleging that the plaintiffs were exclusively dealing in manufacturing and selling of buggies (bullock-carts), curries, windows, etc. manufactured from wood, which are not agricultural produce within the meaning of Section 2 (a) of the U. P. Krishi Utpadan Mandi Adhiniyam. 1964, but the Mandi Samiti has been trying to bring them as traders of wood. Mandi Samiti, Baraut, earlier issued notices for taking licence by the traders for doing business and sale in manufactured items within the market yard of Baraut, which went upto the Supreme Court. Ultimately, the said case was decided by the Apex Court in which it was held that Mandi Samiti was justified in imposing licence fee on traders during transactions of wood if brought to market area after cutting from forest but no market fee can be charged on furniture or other goods after they are manufactured from such wood. In the same case, Mandi Samiti admitted that the Act does not apply to the traders dealing in manufactured goods such as furniture as they are not covered by word 'Agricultural produce'. This judgment is in re. Ram Chandra Kailash Kumar v. State of U. P., AIR 1980 SC 1124. After the said judgment, Mandi Samiti again issued notices dated 24.4.1980 to the plaintiffs asking them to take licence and pay market fee. The plaintiffs replied the said notices, but due to insistence by Mandi Samiti, they filed suits for injunction restraining Mandi Samiti from interfering in carrying on the business of sale of manufactured goods without payment of market fee. The trial court decreed the suit so far as licence fee on trading, of manufactured items were concerned on the ground that such items are wood, but dismissed the suit in respect of market fee on products of wood. In appeal the appellate court allowed the appeal of plaintiffs regarding market fee and also restrained the Mandi Samiti from realizing licence fee as well as market fee. Thus, the suit was decreed in toto by the lower appellate court. The main ground on which the suit was decreed is that the manufactured items such as bullock-carts, buggies, windows etc. are not "wood" and have ceased to be agriculture produce as defined in Section 2 (a) of the Act, 1964 and the plaintiffs were not doing business of wood. The Mandi Samiti has filed this appeal against the said decree.
(3.) The definition of the agriculture produce given in the Adhiniyam of 1964 is as under :