G.M.LODHA,J. - (1.) M /s. Ajaib Singh and Company has filed this appeal after an unsuccessful attempt to get decree from the trial court against the State of Rajasthan. The plaintiffs case is that they are a partnership firm and they took contract of country liquor of Sadulshahar for the year 1969 -70 and deposited a security amount of Rs. 33,980/ -. The plaintiffs case is that while the amount of Rs. 33,980/ - was lying in the deposit in the last month, the defendant failed to issue liquor on the ground that it has no bottles for the purpose. The plaintiffs case is that the State was entitled to supply liquor in its own bottles. The State denied the allegations that there was any fault of the defendant, so the liquor was not supplied The State's case was that the plaintiff did not draw the liquor and they committed the default.
(2.) AFTER framing of the issues and recording of the evidence, the trial court came to the conclusion that Issue No. 2 is the main issue, which was decided against the plaintiff. It was held that the statement of Ramnath plaintiff, stands rebutted by that of Amar Jeet Singh, PW 1, A.E.O. Mr. Parekh, learned counsel for the appellant, has submitted that there is no written statement that the plaintiff was required to deposit the amount in the Ganganagar Sugar Mills of the bottles and then to show the challan for the same for getting an order of issue of liquor. I have perused the statements of the plaintiff and the defendants officer and also relevant documents.
(3.) IT is obvious from the pleading that the evidence did not lead that the plaintiff did not pay the amount of the bottles to the Ganganagar Sugar Mills, a case which has been set up in the evidence.;