- (1.) PRAFULLA C. Pant This appeal, preferred under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred as the Code), is di rected against the judgment and decree dated 25-11-1983, passed in civil suit No. 26 of 1983, by learned District Judge, Chamoli, whereby suit for injunc tion has been decreed by the trial court.
(2.) I heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the lower court record. Brief facts of the case are that plaintiffs/respondents filed a suit against defendant/appellant with the pleadings that in August 1980, forest department of the defendant invited tenders for felling of 184 trees of 'deodar' (Cedar) and 'kail in lot No. 63 /1980-81 in first and second range of Dunagiri, Joshimath. The plaintiffs / respondents gave highest bid of Rs. 2,01,000/-, which was ac cepted by the defendant / appellant vide letter dated 13-08-1981. The de fendant further sanctioned felling of 100 more trees in favour of the plain tiffs. Again, on 24-04-1982 vide letter No. 1/41/p, the Divisional Forest Officer of the defendant sanctioned felling of further 30 trees valued at Rs. 81,482. 09 in favour of the plaintiffs. Thus, in all plaintiffs were allowed to cut 314 trees in said lot. Accordingly, the plaintiffs started felling operations, which was to be completed, as per the contract, by 30-08-1982. It was not in dispute that plaintiffs paid entire amount of Rs. 2,97,783. 13 towards cost of the trees excluding the late fee and the sales tax. It appears that cer tain complaints were made to the for est department against the plaintiffs that under the garb of aforesaid sanc tion they were cutting some trees ille gally. After alleged enquiry on the part of the defendant, the Divisional For est Officer, Badrinath vide his order dated 20-01-1983, directed the plain tiffs not to proceed with the felling operation in respect of lot No. 63 / 80-81. Apart from this, the defendant made a demand of Rs. 71,940. 74 against the plaintiffs on 18- 06-1983, for felling the trees illegally. Challeng ing the said demand and the order whereby the felling operation was di rected to be stopped, a suit for injunc tion was filed by the plaintiffs for the relief that no embargo be made in lift ing 400 sleepers lying on the aforesaid lot. A further relief was sought that the defendant be directed not to real ize Rs. 71,940. 74 from the plaintiffs. The appellant / defendant con tested the suit but admitted that un der a time bound contract the trees as mentioned in the plaint, were allowed to be cut by the plaintiffs / respond ents. It is further pleaded in the writ ten statement that the plaintiffs vio lated the terms of the contract and on inspection it was found that there had been illegal felling of 15 more trees than the trees allowed to cut, as such, demand of Rs. 71,940. 74 was made from them. In the written statement it was also pleaded that the suit is not maintainable as there is arbitration agreement between the parties to re fer the dispute.
(3.) THE trial court, after perusal of the pleadings of the parties, framed following four issues : i) Whether, the plaintiffs have still to cut 16 more trees as per the sanction, Tuorth Rs. 41,838. 05 (Rs. 1,097. 00 + Rs. 40,741. 05), or the plaintiffs have already cut and removed 15 extra trees worth Rs. 71,940. 74, if so, its effect? ii) Whether, court fee paid, is in sufficient? iii) Whether, in the light of Clause 27 of agreement between the parties, the suit is premature and plaintiffs ought to have re ferred their claim for arbitra tion before instituting the suit? iv) To what relief, if any, are the plaintiffs entitled? From the record, it appears that the plaintiffs adduced its evidence but defendant failed to adduce oral evi dence, before the trial court, and the trial court proceeded under Order XVII Rule 3 of the Code, and decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiffs.;