S. K. Mal Lodha, J. - (1.) THIS appeal under section 100 C. P. C. is by defendants against the appellate judgment and decree dated March 28, 1969, of the learned District Judge, Jodhpur by which he confirmed the decree for Rs. 4685. 33 with proportionate costs passed by the Civil Judge, Jodhpur on April 15, 1966 in a suit for recovery of Rs. 4984. 69 on account of loss suffered by the plaintiff-respondent as there was a breach of contract.
(2.) A few facts giving rise to this appeal may briefly be recounted here i The defendants-appellants are the legal representative of late Fauj Raj, who according to the plaintiff-respondent, worked under the name and style 'faujraj & Company' for the supply of Ration Commodities. The Authority of the Central Jail, Jodhpur invited tenders for the supply of ration commodities for the period commencing from July 1, 1955 to June 30, 1956. The conditions of the contract are contained in Ex. 2. Material conditions for the disposal of the appeal are as under : Lqy Bsdsnkj dks Lohd`r olrq,waa bumsuv feyrs gh ,d lirkg esa tsy xksnke esa fcuk vfrfjdr pktz ds nsuh gksxha 4- dksbz olrq Lohd`r uewusa u gksus ij o Bsdsnkj ds eky le; ij nsus es vLqy gksus ij lkeku cktkj ls [kjhnk tk;sxk ftlds Hkko Qdz dks fteesnkj Bsdsnkj gksxka Late Faujraj. proprietor of Fauj Raj & Company gave a tender on April 30, 1955. His tender was accepted by the Government of Rajasthan. A contract for the supply of ration commodities mentioned in memorandum No. D-4233/ F. 16 (143) Home. 11/55 dated July 29, 1955 was sanctioned in his favour for the period from August 1, 1955 to June 30, 1956. The sanction was conveyed to late Faujraj by the Superintendent, Central Jail on August 2, 1955. An agreement (Ex. 5) in pursuance of the sanction was executed. The security amount was not deposited by Faujraj. He, however, supplied the ration commodities regularly to the Jail Authorities for some time, but later on he could not arrange for regular supply. On March 25, 1956 he refused to supply the commodities and intimated to the jail authority vide letter dated June 27, 1956 that he was cmfined to bed and, therefore, was unable to make the necessary arrangement for supply of the contracted articles. As Faujraj failed to supply the contracted commodities, the Jail Authorities purchased them from the market at a higher price upto June 30, 1956. The plaintiff respondent has stated that on account of the purchase of the contracted articles from the market, the Government had suffered a loss of Rs. 4984 11 because of the breach of contract committed by Faujraj. The State, therefore, instituted a suit for the recovery of Rs. 4984. 11 in the court of Civil Judge, Jodhpur on May 11, 1961 against the defendants appellants being the legal representative of Faujraj. The suit was resisted by the defendants. One of the important pleas taken by them was that even if the case of the plaintiff is taken to be proved, the agreement (Ex. 5) was not completed and, therefore, the defendants are not liable for breach and Faujraj was at liberty to put an end to this contract at any time. The trial court framed five issues inclusive of the relief. After trial, the learned Civil Judge, by his judgment dated April 15, 1956, partly decreed the suit for Rs. 4685. 33 and the bar of the decree was limited to the extent of the assets left by Faujraj and received by the defendants and not satisfactorily accounted for. The suit for the amount of Rs. 299. 36 was dismissed with costs and future and pendentelite interest was allowed at the rate of 6% p. m. on the decretal amount. Being dissatisfied, the defendants went in appeal and the learned District Judge, by his judgment, dated March 28, 1969, confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge on April 15, 1966. Aggrieved, the defendants have come up in appeal to this Court. I have heard Mr. Rajendra Mehta, learned counsel for the appellants and the learned Additional Government Advocate on behalf of the respondent.
(3.) MR. Rajendra Mehta, appearing for the appellants has not raised any controversy in regard to the sum of Rs. 924. 3 as mentioned in Ex. 126. This amount pertained to the loss suffered by the respondents for non-supply of contracted commodities upto March, 1956. The controversy in this appeal, therefore, remains confined to the balance of the decretal amount. The only argument raised by Mr. Rajendra Mehta is that by means of the agreement (Ex. 5), no completed contract come into existence and as there Was no completed contract, the defendants cannot be held to liable for its breach. On the basis of condition No. 2, reproduced from Ex. 2 and Clause 2 of the agreement (Ex. 5), it was strenuously contended that the 'agent' (Late Faujraj) was bound to deliver the contracted commodities in accordance with the requirements of Central Jail at the godown, Jodhpur. This, according to the learned counsel pre-supposed a specific order relating to specific quantity of the conttacted commodities and if the Agent had failed to supply the goods on placing of the order of their supply then there would have been a breach of contract. In other words, according to the learned counsel the binding contract could only come into existence after the placing of the order by the Jail Authorities with regard to specified quantity of the contracted commodities. Learned Additional Government Advocate controverted this position and submitted that Ex. 5 was a completed contract and as Late Faujraj committed breach of the conditions thereof, he was liable to make good the loss suffered by the plaintiff. I have given my most anxious and thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions raised on behalf of the learned counsel for the parties and I am of opinion that there is considerable force in what the learned counsel for the appellant has contended. ;