DINANATH Vs. PREMCHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal arises out of a suit instituted by one Kishanlal, the father of (he present Respondent Prem Chand for damages for the breach of a contract on the part of the Defendant -Appellant to purchase 275 bags of Bajra. The Plaintiff's case was that on 18th July 1943, the Appellant contracted to purchase 500 bags of Bajra at the rate of 5 seers and 14 Chataks of Bajra per rupees that in pursuance of this contract the Defendant purchased 225 bags of Bajra by 6th November 1948 and that thereafter the Defendant failed to purchase and take delivery of 275 bags of Bajra in spile of a notice to that effect.

(2.) THE only point urged by Mr. Hariharniwas learned Counsel for the Appellant is that the rationing order dated 27th October 1943 made it impossible and unlawful for the Defendant to purchase the remaining 275 bags of Bajra and that the Courts below were wrong in thinking that the Defendant could not be absolved from performing the contract without proving that he had applied to the Controller of Supplies and Prices for permission to purchase the Bajra and that this permission was not granted.

(3.) IN my opinion the Courts below were right in decreeing the Plaintiff's claim. The result is that this appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.