(1.) Defendants in Money Suit No. 39/ 2 of 1972/ 75 are the appellants in this appeal against the judgment of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Dhenkanal passing a decree against the appellants to refund a sum of Rs. 4150/- with interest thereon at the rate of 6 per cent per annum from the date of deposit to the date of realisation of the said amount and further declaring that the Certificate Case No. 71 of 1971-72 now pending with defendant No. 5 (Certificate Officer, Kamakshyanagar) is void.
(2.) The plaintiff's case in brief is as follows: The plaintiff is a forest contractor and pursuant to an advertisement for sale of timber of Dhenkanal Forest Division, Angul, he was a bidder in respect of divisional lot No. 21 of Rajagada coupe No. 8 of East Kamakshyanagar Range in the auction held on 13-9-1965. The auction was conducted by defendant No. 4 (Divisional Forest Officer, Dhenkanal) which was knocked down in favour of the plaintiff, who became the highest bidder having offered Rs. 41,500/-. Ten per cent of the bid amount amounting to Rs. 4150/- was accepted from the brother of the plaintiff, who was also his authorised agent and according to the plaintiff, his brother was also made to sign a blank forest contract agreement form on that day. The plaintiff alleges that though he was intimated by a letter dated 19-10-1965 (Ext. D) that his bid has been accepted by the concerned authorities and he was to pay the bid amount in four instalments on the dates specified therein. The plaintiff did not act there upon saying that the agreement has not been made over to him after being duly signed by the competent authority. It is only on 2-8-1966 the agreement was made over to him being duly signed. But there was no rephasing regarding the date of payment of instalment amount. Consequently the plaintiff could not pay the instalment though he made grievance by several letters written to the authorities. Thereafter the contract was terminated by the authorities which the plaintiff alleges to be illegal. The coupe was re-sold and the amount which was deficit by the resale of the coupe is now claimed to be recovered in Certificate case No. 71 of 1971-72 which is pending before the Certificate Officer (defendant No. 5). The plaintiff was also intimated that his security deposit has been forfeited along with the termination of the contract. The plaintiff has filed the present suit for realisation of the aforesaid security deposit of Rs. 4150/- along with the interest, also for realisation of sum of Rs. 1000/- as damages for breach of contract and for a declaration that the Certificate Case No. 71 of 1971-72 pending before the Certificate Officer, Kamakshyanagar is void ab initio.
(3.) Defendants 2, 3, 4 and 5 were set ex parte, whereas written statement was filed on behalf of defendant No. 1 who contested the suit. Defendant No. 1 denied all the plaint allegations and contended that the plaintiff was duly intimated that he has been accepted by the competent authority being the highest bidder, to operate the forest coupe in question and he was required to pay the consideration in four equal instalments on the dates specified in the letter exhibited in the suit as Ext. 'D'. It is also the case of the contesting defendant that coupe was made over to him on 4-11-1965 on which day the plaintiffs brother-cum-authorised agent signed the coupe declaration certificate acknowledging the delivery of possession. The said document has been marked as Ext. 'J' in the suit. The plaintiff thereafter having defaulter in payment of the instalments dues, the contract was terminated in the manner as provided under law and the security money deposited by him was forfeited as a consequence of the termination of contract. It is for this reason it was contended by the defendant No. 1 that a resale of the coupe was correctly made and the plaintiff was also legally bound to compensate the Government for the loss sustained on account of his default. The deficit consideration money is sought to be realised in the certificate proceeding which, according to the defendant No. 1 is legal and valid.