- (1.) In both the appeals the plaintiff is the appellant by virtue of the certificates issued by the High Court of Delhi, Himachal Pradesh Bench, Simla. The question that arises in both the appeals is the same and the learned counsel are agreed that the disposal of C. A. No. 1678 of 1968 would dispose of C. A. No. 2124 of 1968. We will therefore take up the facts in Civil Appeal No. 1678 of 1968 only.
(2.) The plaintiff, Karnal Distillery Co. Ltd. filed this suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 25,270/-, principal being Rs. 22,264/6/3 and interest at the rate of 6% per annum amounting to Rs. 3,005/9/9. The case for the plaintiff/appellant is that on 20th July, 1950 the plaintiff and Himachal Pradesh Government entered into an agreement under Ex. P-1 dated 20-7-1950 by which the plaintiff agreed to supply 12,000 L. P. gallons, with 10% variation of quantity on either side, of country liquors to the liquor licensees of Mandi District during the remaining period of 1950-51 commencing from August 1, 1950, at the rates mentioned in the agreement. The plaintiff offered to supply 10,800 L. P. gallons of liquor during the said period. The Himachal Pradesh Government accepted 10580.3 L. P. gallons. While the Government disposed of 7934.5 L.P. gallons, the remaining stock of 2645.8 L. P. gallons was taken over by the Government. For this quantity of liquor the plaintiff submitted a bill for Rs. 22,264/6/3 at the contractual rates and the interest due thereon. The main defence to the action with which we are concerned is that the plaintiff is not entitled to the contractual price of 2645.8 L. P. gallons of country liquor supplied to the defendant according to the rates mentioned in the agreement. The stand that was taken by the Government was that the liquor licencees of Mandi to whom the liquor was supplied were necessary parties and that the rights of the parties were not governed under agreement Ex. P-1 as the Government was acting as a sovereign body under the Punjab Excise Act and rules made thereunder.
(3.) The trial Court, the Senior Sub-Judge, Simla holding that the plaintiff was entitled to contractual price of 2,645.8 L. P. gallons decreed the suit as prayed for. The trial Judge observed that the price of the disputed liquor which has been taken by the Government had not been sold by the plaintiff to the retail liquor licencees and the liquor whose price is now claimed was admittedly taken over by the defendant Government. The trial Court also negatived the plea of the defendant that the plaintiff is entitled only to the price fixed by the Collector under the Excise Act and rules i.e. Rupees 16,333/5/2 as the parties were governed by the terms of bilateral contract Ex. P-1, the terms of which cannot be changed. In this view the trial Court decreed the suit as prayed for, namely for a sum of Rupees 25,270/- with costs.;