DHAN RAJ Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal, filed by the plaintiff, is directed against the judgment dated 13th August, 1975, of the Additional District Judge, Sirohi, dismissing the plaintiff's suit for the recovery of Rs. 11,001/ -.

(2.) THE plaintiff was granted a licence for the sale of country made liquor under a guarantee system at Ganchiwada, Sirohi, for the period from April 1, 1963 to March 31, 1964. As per the terms of the licence, the plaintiff guaranteed to draw from the Government warehouse country liquor worth Rs. 1,00,001/ -. He was required to draw and sale by the end of each month l/12th quantity of the liquor of the guarnteed amount. He could make the deficiency good by the 10th of the next month. The plaintiff had deposited a sum of Rs. 10,001/ - as security. In case of any shortfall in the guaranteed amount, the same could be realised from his security amount and the balance, if any was, recoverable from his other moveable and immovable property. On the expiry of the period of licence, the security amount was not refunded to the plaintiff. He, therefore, served a notice under Section 80, CPC on the defendant and when no action was taken on it, he filed a suit for the recovery of Rs. 11,001 / - in the Court of Civil Judge, Sirohi. The suit was filed on May 2, 1967. The plaintiff's case, in brief, was that although he was willing and prepared to deposit l/12th of the guaranteed amount every month and wanted to draw liquor from the ware house of the value of the guaranteed quantity there was shortage of liquor in the ware house and, therefore, the same was not supplied to the plaintiff, as per his demands. This resulted in short supply and for this the plaintiff had to keep his shop closed for some period. In the suit the plaintiff claimed refund of the amount of Rs. 10,001/ - deposited by him as security and a further sum of Rs. 1,000/ - on account of loss sustained by him as a result of his shop remaining closed, total Rs. 11,001/ -.

(3.) AFTER trial, the Additional District Judge, Sirohi, by the judgment dated 13th August, 1975, dismissed the plaintiff's suit with costs. The Additional District Judge has held that although the agreement (Ex. 2) did not contain a condition that the defendant was bound to supply the variety of liquor as demanded by the licencee, yet this condition was implicit in the agreement, because unless the plaintiff was supplied the variety required by him, be could not be expected to fulfil his part of the contract. The Additional District Judge, however, held that it was the Plaintiff, who had failed to deposit sufficient sums in the Treasury or Bank and that it was wrong to suggest that the Excise Inspector did not allow him to deposit the full amount. The Additional District Judge decided against the plaintiff the issue that he had sustained a loss of Rs. 1,000/ - due to the breach of the contract by the defendant. It was held that the plaintiff was not entitled to the refund of the security amount.