Ajay Mohan Goel, J. - (1.)By way of this appeal, appellant/plaintiff has assailed the judgment and decree passed by the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Shimla, H.P. in Civil Suit RBT No.4-S/1 of 2005/99, titled Devi Sahiba Maheshwari Shari Versus Himachal Pradesh State Forest Corporation, Shimla & another, decided on 21.02.2008, whereby suit for recovery of Rs.6,27,373/- on account of principal and interest, filed by the appellant/ plaintiff, stood dismissed by the learned Court below.
(2.)Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the present appeal are as under:-
Appellant herein filed a suit for recovery of Rs.6,27,373/- on account of principal and interest on the grounds that the appellant/plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as the 'plaintiff') is a deity, who was owning property which was in its possession upon which trees were existing. Plaintiff was permitted by this Court (i.e. High Court of Himachal Pradesh) to sell trees standing on the private land owned by it vide order dated 06.11.1991, passed in CWP No.1223 of 1989. Pursuant thereto, plaintiff entered into an agreement for the sale of 697 Deodar trees of different classification for the purpose of felling, conversion and sale of timber extracted thereof with the defendant on 13.03.1992. Plaintiff duly handed over 697 Deodar trees in terms of the agreement to defendant as per the permission which stood accorded by Divisional Forest Officer,Theog, vide order dated 15.02.1992. Thereafter, the trees were felled by the defendants. Timber was extracted thereof and after conversion, same was put for sale in different lots at its sale depot at Baddi, District Solan, H.P. In terms of the agreement, working period for the sale of the Deodar trees was fixed two years upto 13.03.1994, however, defendants failed to complete the work within the stipulated period and had only partly completed the sale of extracted timber even upto the month of February, 1995. It was further the case of the plaintiff that in the course of conversion of the timber from the trees which were felled by the defendants, numerous side slabs were extracted and these side slabs were also to be sold within the stipulated period, but defendants did not carry them from the land where the trees were felled nor the same were sold.

(3.)It was further the case of the plaintiff that qua sale of the extracted timber as up to the month of February, 1995, payments were not made by the defendants to the plaintiff in terms of the agreement. Plaintiff asked the defendants to give details of the amount, which stood realised by sale of the extracted timber after deduction of expenses incurred by the defendants and thereafter to pay the net amount to the plaintiff. Defendants responded to the said request of the plaintiff vide letter dated 31.05.1996 by sending details of the amount realised and also the details of the amount deducted out of the sale proceeds by the defendants, which was tentative.
;