V. Balakrishna Eradi J. - (1.) This appeal by certificate granted by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh under Article 133 (1) (a) arises out of a suit-Regular Civil Suit No .7-A of 1963-on the file of the First Additional District Judge, Bhopal instituted by the appellant herein against the State of Madhya Pradesh, for recovery of a sum of Rs. 29,500/- from the defendant, by way of refund of the first instalment of the sale price deposited by the plaintiff with the Forest Department of the defendant-State pursuant to an auction of two forest coupes held on August 17, 1960, together with damages alleged to have been sustained by the plaintiff on account of alleged breach of contract by the defendant. The plaint contained a further prayer that the defendant should be restrained by a permanent injunction from taking any steps to recover from the plaintiff the second and third instalments of the sale price for which the two coupes had been knocked down in favour of the plaintiff at the auction sale.
(2.) The trial Court held that the plaintiff is entitled to recover from the defendant Rs. 17,500- by way of refund of the first instalment of the sale price of the two coupes, but rejected the plaintiff's claim for recovery of damages. Accordingly, a decree was passed in the plaintiff's favour for recovery of Rupees 17,500/- with proportionate costs. The plaintiff's prayer for the relief of permanent injunction was also granted by the trial Court.
(3.) The State (defendant) carried the matter in appeal before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh. The High Court took the view that the plaintiff's claim for refund of the first instalment of the sale price was unsustainable inasmuch as he had not proved that the number of trees which were actually available for extraction in the two coupes, according to the proper markings, was less than the number of trees which was covered by the assurance given to the contractor at the time of the auction. As regards the relief of permanent injunction, the High Court held that from the notice (Exh. P-7) issued by the concerned Divisional Forest officer to the plaintiff on April 17, 1961, it was seen that the Government had indicated to the plaintiff its intention to terminate the contract before the second instalment had become due and hence the only right, which the Government thereafter had was to realise from the plaintiff the deficiency, if any, occasioned by a resale of the two coupes. In this view, the High Court held that the Government had no longer the right to claim from the plaintiff the balance of the sale consideration represented by the second and third instalments and that the decree for permanent injunction granted by the trial Court did not, therefore, call for any interference. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the defendant was allowed in part by the High Court and the decree granted to the plaintiff by the trial court for recovery of Rs. 17,500/- was set aside. Hence, this appeal by the plaintiff.;