FIRM MEGHRAJ NATHMAL Vs. FIRM MOTILAL SURESH CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a second appeal by the defendant against the judgment and decree of the learned District Judge, Jaipur District Jaipur reversing that of the Civil Judge, Sambhar.

(2.) THE plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 756/- plus Rs. 144/-as interest against the appellant Firm Meghraj Nathmal alleging that it had contracted to supply two wagons of salt on 16th November, 1942 vide Ex. P. 1 to it at Sambhar which had been alloted to it by the Salt Department, Government of India, the price of which had been paid vide Treasury Receipts Nos. 14522 and 14523 on 27th October, 1942. THE Salt Department was to deliver the salt wagons to the defendant on some future date. THE plaintiff paid Rs. 378/- per wagon as profit to the defendant firm at the time of making the contract and agreed to pay the price of salt at the time of delivery of wagons to the defendant. It was stipulated in Ex. P. 1 that the defendant would inform the plaintiff about the receipt of wagons as and when they received notice of clearance from the Salt Department. THE gunny bags were to be supplied by the plaintiff. THE plaintiff was to be responsible for any profits or losses or any increase or decrease in the rate of duty on salt. THE defendant firm receiving intimation from the Salt Department informed the plaintiff vide notices Ex. A-4 and Ex. A-5 dated 22nd May, 1943 and 5th May, 1943 respectively and called upon the plaintiff to take delivery of the railway receipts for the wagons in question on payment of the price thereof. THE plaintiff, however, declined to accept the railway receipts and gave reply on 9th May, 1943 (Ex. 12) saying that the contract between the parties had become void on the doctrine of frustration because of certain notifications issued by the General Manager, Rajputana Salt Sources Division Sambhar issued in pursuance of the Salt Emergency Distribution Order dated 24th October, 1942. THEreafter the plaintiff instituted the present suit claiming refund of Rs. 726/- which had been paid to the defendant along with interest thereon.

(3.) THIS being so the defendants objection that it was ready to hand over the railway receipt to the plaintiff and the latter refused to accept it, has no meaning because the contract automatically was frustrated on the direction issued by the General Manager on 30th January, 1943 and the receiving of the railway receipt only could not have been of any practical utility to the plaintiff. I, therefore, hold that the contract between the parties had become impossible of performance and the plaintiff became entitled to claim refund of what it had paid to the defendant under the contract.