AMAR SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal from Pepsu raises the question whether a certain agreement can be regarded as a contract of novation.

(2.) The facts of the case are very simple indeed. Amar Singh plaintiff owed the State of Pepsu a sum of Rs. 35,000 or thereabouts on account of a contract for the sale of country liquor. It appears that a similar sum was due by the State to Balak Ram and certain other contractors for distillation of liquor. Balak Ram and others owed a sum of Rs. 35,000 or thereabouts to Amar Singh plaintiff. The Excise Commissioner had issued a warrant for the recovery of the amount due from Amar Singh as arrears of land revenue but on the 28th November, 1960 Balak Ram, Lehna Singh and Jagdish Ram made a statement before him (Exhibit P.A.) that they had no objection to the amount due to the State from Amar Singh being deducted from the amount due to them from the State. The Excise Commissioner appears to have agreed to this proposal for he issued an order staying the recovery of the amount due to the State from Amar Singh.

(3.) Unfortunately certain disputes arose between Balak Ram and the State concerning the amount which was due from Balak Ram and the State was unable to adjust the sum of Rs. 35,000 which was due from Amar Singh. The Excise Commissioner accordingly issued a fresh warrant for the recovery of the amount as arrears of land revenue. Amar Singh thereupon brought a suit for the issue of an injunction restraining the State from recovering the amount. The trial Court dismissed the suit and the order of the trial Court was upheld by the learned Additional District Judge of Patiala. The plaintiff is dissatisfied with the orders of the Courts below and has come to this Court in second appeal.