GOPALDAS BALKRISHNA AOARWAL Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal, by the unsuccessful plaintiff, is directed against a judgment of the Additional District Judge, Betul, dated 12th October 1966, dismissing his suit for declaration, injunction and refund of consideration.

(2.) THE relevant facts may be shortly stated. At a public auction held on 10th July 1962, the plaintiff purchased felled trees of teak and other species lying in coupe No. IX (A and B) Felling Series, Sarni, for a consideration of rs. 8,000. The amount of consideration was payable in 4 equal instalments of rs. 2,000 each. The plaintiff paid the 1st instalment and after execution of a coupe boundary certificate and the usual contract deed, he was placed in possession of the coupe. For a period of 4 months, he made no complaint whatever about any shortage of material. The complaint was not made until he had defaulted in payment of the 2nd instalment. No enquiry on his complaint was called for as the plaintiff had satisfied" himself about the material before executing the coupe boundary certificate. Thereafter, he also made a default in payment of the 3rd instalment. The Divisional Forest Officer served him with a notice calling upon him to pay the defaulted instalments within 15 days, failing which he threatened that action for cancellation of the contract would be taken. That notice had no effect on the plaintiff who, instead, applied for an extension of time alleging that he was misled in bidding at the auction. In rejecting his prayer for extension, the Divisional Forest Officer observed that the quantity of forest produce had not been guaranteed and there was no case for extension. In the meanwhile, the plaintiff did not also pay the 4th instalment which had fallen due. He was, therefore, served with another notice to pay the over due instalments. The notice stated that if he did not remit the 2nd, 3rd and the 4th instalments within 15 days, the Divisional Forest Officer would be compelled to take action for the cancellation of the contract. The plaintiff preferred an appeal to the Conservator of Forests against the refusal of the Divisional forest Officer to grant an extension but that appeal was rejected.

(3.) EVENTUALLY, when the plaintiff did not comply with the notices of demand for payment of the 3 defaulted instalments, the Divisional Forest officer, by his order, Ex. D-7, terminated the contract under Rule 29 of the forest Contract Rules, and in his forwarding endorsement directed that the relinquished material would be re-auctioned.