STATE OF ORISSA Vs. GIRISH CHANDRA TRIPATHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The unsuccessful defendants being aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed by Learned Sub-ordinate Judge, Bargarh (as it was then) in M.S. No. 61 of 1981 have filed this appeal. By the said judgment, the Court below has decreed the suit of the respondent directing the appellants to pay a sum of Rs. 15,720/- with the cost of the suit within a period of one month or else to pay pandentilite and future interest @ 6 percent per annum.

(2.) For the sake of convenience, to avoid confusion and for clarity, the parties hereinafter have been referred to as they have been arranged in the court below.

(3.) Plaintiff's case is as under:- The plaintiff, a Forest contractor, stood as the highest bidder, in the auction held pursuant to the sale notice dated 25.08.1978 for sale of Barabakhara C.C. No. 9, D.L. No. 11, 78-79 of Bhatli Range, Sambalpur Forest Division. The bid was knocked down in favour of the plaintiff for a sum of Rs. 1,39,000/-. Accordingly, the plaintiff executed an agreement having deposited the sum towards the security deposit. The same having been accepted and approved was duly communicated to the plaintiff by DFO, Sambalpur vide letter No. 5917 dated 16.11.1978. As per the terms of the agreement and the work order, the plaintiff was required to deposit the bid amount in four equal installments which he did. As per the sale notice dated 25.08.1978 marking list was supplied to the plaintiff for felling of 475 number of trees both sound and unsound in four sections. The plaintiff accordingly started the work of felling. In course of felling, it was detected that sl. No. 801 to 900 was omitted in the marking list though the page number has been shown consecutively and on actual verification it was found that no trees have been marked in the coupe corresponding to the said serial numbers. So, the same was immediately brought to the notice of the Forest Range Officer, Bhatli who after verification was convinced about such omissions and non-marking of the trees. It is stated that Range Officer then gave a second list indicating sl. No. 801 to 900 but it was without any signature of the Marking Officer and there came the direction of the Range Officer to the agent of the plaintiff to make entry of the same in felling and conversion register. The agent out of ignorance made entry of 10 serials of trees without the knowledge of the plaintiff. But when the plaintiff detected the said defect, he did not allow the same to be further entered into the felling and conversion register as there was no actual marking of the tree as per serial noted in the second list. The plaintiff then requested the Range Officer several times to mark the trees as per the second list but did not oblige. As the Central period was going to expire by 30.11.1978 the plaintiff requested the DFO vide letter dated 28.11.1979 for rectification of the said mistake and after long lapse of time, the DFO, Sambalpur was pleased to direct the ACF, Sambalpur to make spot inquiry and accordingly the enquiry was made but no decision was communicated in spite of repeated request and appeal. The discrepancy as above as per the case of the plaintiff was due to the negligence on the part of the employees of the defendants. So the plaintiff claimed to have sustained loss for the same and it was assessed at Rs. 15,720/- as per the calculation of the fair rate of 100 nos. of trees. The plaintiff thus claimed compensation of the said amount from the defendants and served notice under section 80 C.P.C. As no response came, the suit was filed.