PADMACHARAN MOHAPATRA Vs. DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, PHULBANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this appeal, the plaintiff as appellant assails the judgment and decree dated 07.09.2001 and 03.10.2001 respectively passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Phulbani in T.S. No.15 of 1998 dismissing the suit for extension of six months time for performance of contract executed between the plaintiff and the defendants or in the alternative for grant a compensation of Rs.5,00,000/- towards the value of timbers remained un-lifted from the coupe and for cost.

(2.) Plaintiff was 'A' Class Contractor and he being the highest bidder in an auction for sale, Coupe No.16/2 DL-5-1979-80 was knocked down in his favour for a consideration of Rs.5,00,000/-. The auction amount was to be paid in four equal instalments by 15.10.1979, 15.03.1980, 15.10.1980 and 15.02.1981. He was allowed eighteen working months for cutting and lifting of logs in the said coupe beyond the intervening three non-working months from July to September. As the Coupe was situated in the midst of forest, there was inaccessibility to the area and because of the labour problem, the plaintiff could not lift the cut down logs within the stipulated time for which he sought for extension of time to workout the contract. He further submitted that there was no route map provided to him for which there was problem in shifting the cut down logs. All the difficulties were wellknown to the forest authorities. His representation for extension of time was kept in cold storage and no action was taken on the same. It is only after a direction of this Court in OJC No.2787 of 1996, the defendant no.3, namely, Conservator of Forests, Berhampur Circle rejected his representation without considering the recommendations of the concerned Divisional Forest Officer (Defendant No.1) for extension of time. Thus, he filed the suit for the aforesaid relief.

(3.) The respondents as defendants filed their written statement refuting the assertions made in the plaint. It was specifically contended by the defendants that time was the essence of contract and there was no exceptional circumstances existed beyond the control of the plaintiff in operation of the coupe within the stipulated period. It was further contended that defendants had never issued any direction to the plaintiff to engage local Adivasis as labourers. On the other hand, the plaintiff before submitting his bid for the coupe had inspected the area and on being satisfied with the terms and conditions of operation of the coupe, he had filed his bid. As such, he could not raise any objection with regard to the labour problem and inaccessibility as alleged by him. Moreover, a route map was attached to the agreement, which clearly described the connectivity of the coupe area to the main road. The defendant further contended that his representation for extension of time to operate the coupe was rightly rejected by the Conservator of Forests, as there existed no exceptional circumstance to extend the same. As such, the defendants submitted that the plaintiff had no cause of action to file the suit and the suit was not maintainable. Hence, they prayed for dismissal of the suit with cost.