Fazl Ali, J. - (1.) This is an appeal by special leave against a decision of the High Court at Allahabad, reversing the decision of the trial Court, in a suit instituted by the appellant to recover damages from the respondent-firm for breach of a contract.
(2.) It appears that between 10th and 18-4-1941, the parties entered into 5 contracts, by which the respondent-firm undertook to supply to the appellant 184 bales of cloth of certain specifications manufactured by the New Victoria Mills, Kanpur and the Raza textile Mills, Rampur. Only 99 bales were taken up and there was a dispute about remaining 85 bales. On 17-10-1941, a settlement was arrived at between parties, and it was agreed that the respondent-firm should deliver to the appellant 61 bales, and that the goods should be delivered by 17-11-1941. The actual text of the agreement (Ex. 4) was as follows:"61 bales as noted below are to be given to you by us.We shall continue sending goods as soon as they are prepared to you upto Magsar Badi 15 Sambat 1998. We shall go on supplying goods to you of the Victoria Mills as soon as they are supplied to us by the said Mill.(Specifications of cloth given here).We shall go on delivering the goods to you upto Magsar Badi 15 out of the goods noted above which will be prepared by the Mill."As the 61 bales were not supplied, the appellant sent a telegraphic notice to the respondent-firm on 20-11-1941 to the following effect:"Give delivery of our 61 bales through Bank. Otherwise suing within 3 days." The appellant did not receive any reply to this notice, and so he instituted the suit which has given rise to this appeal, on 23-4-1942, claiming a sum of Rs. 9,808 and odd, which, according to him, represented the loss sustained by him on account of the rise in the market rate of the contracted goods, and he also claimed costs and interest. The respondent-firm resisted the suit on a number of grounds, but their main plea, with which alone we are concerned in this appeal, was that the performance of the contract had been frustrated by circumstances beyond their control and hence the appellant's claim must fail. This plea was negatived by the trial Court, but it was upheld by the High Court, and hence this appeal.
(3.) The only point which arises in this appeal is whether the circumstances of the case afford any basis for the application of the doctrine of frustration of contract, a doctrine which is embodied, so far as this country is concerned in Ss. 32 and 56, Contract Act, 1872.;