Devi Sahiba Maheshwari Shari vs H.P. State Forest Corporation Ltd on 29 May, 2020

[Cites 3, Cited by 10]

Himachal Pradesh High Court

Devi Sahiba Maheshwari Shari vs H.P. State Forest Corporation Ltd on 29 May, 2020

Bench: Ajay Mohan Goel

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA RFA No.105 of 2008 Reserved on 27.05.2020 Decided on: 29.05.2020 Devi Sahiba Maheshwari Shari ....Appellant.

Versus H.P. State Forest Corporation Ltd.

    & another          r                                                  ...Respondents.
    Coram

The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes For the appellant : Mr. Bhupender Gupta, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Janesh Gupta, Advocate.

For the respondents : Mr. Vinod Thakur, Advocate.

Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge By way of this appeal, appellant/plaintiff has assailed the judgment and decree passed by the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Shimla, H.P. in Civil Suit RBT No.4S/1 of 2005/99, titled Devi Sahiba Maheshwari Shari Versus Himachal Pradesh State Forest Corporation, Shimla & another, decided on 21.02.2008, whereby suit for recovery of Rs.6,27,373/ on account of 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

::: Downloaded on - 01/06/2020 20:22:59 :::HCHP 2

principal and interest, filed by the appellant/ plaintiff, stood dismissed by the learned Court below.

2. Brief facts necessary for the adjudication of the present appeal are as under: r to Appellant herein filed a suit for recovery of Rs.6,27,373/ on account of principal and interest on the grounds that the appellant/plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as the 'plaintiff') is a deity, who was owning property which was in its possession upon which trees were existing. Plaintiff was permitted by this Court (i.e. High Court of Himachal Pradesh) to sell trees standing on the private land owned by it vide order dated 06.11.1991, passed in CWP No.1223 of 1989.

Pursuant thereto, plaintiff entered into an agreement for the sale of 697 Deodar trees of different classification for the purpose of felling, conversion and sale of timber extracted thereof with the defendant on 13.03.1992. Plaintiff duly handed over 697 Deodar trees in terms of the agreement to defendant as per the permission which stood accorded by Divisional Forest Officer,Theog, vide order dated 15.02.1992.

::: Downloaded on - 01/06/2020 20:22:59 :::HCHP 3

Thereafter, the trees were felled by the defendants. Timber was extracted thereof and after conversion, same was put for sale in different lots at its sale depot at Baddi, District Solan, H.P. In terms of the agreement, working period for the sale of r to the Deodar trees was fixed two years upto 13.03.1994, however, defendants failed to complete the work within the stipulated period and had only partly completed the sale of extracted timber even upto the month of February, 1995. It was further the case of the plaintiff that in the course of conversion of the timber from the trees which were felled by the defendants, numerous side slabs were extracted and these side slabs were also to be sold within the stipulated period, but defendants did not carry them from the land where the trees were felled nor the same were sold.

3. It was further the case of the plaintiff that qua sale of the extracted timber as up to the month of February, 1995, payments were not made by the defendants to the plaintiff in terms of the agreement. Plaintiff asked the defendants to give details of the amount, which stood realised by sale of the ::: Downloaded on - 01/06/2020 20:22:59 :::HCHP 4 .

extracted timber after deduction of expenses incurred by the defendants and thereafter to pay the net amount to the plaintiff. Defendants responded to the said request of the plaintiff vide letter dated 31.05.1996 by sending details of the r to amount realised and also the details of the amount deducted out of the sale proceeds by the defendants, which was tentative.

4. It was further the case of the plaintiff that as per the details supplied to it by the defendants, plaintiff was tentatively entitled for balance amount of Rs.12,51,771/, however, defendants had made illegal deductions to the tune of Rs.4, 54, 006/ from the same and thus, shown only a sum of Rs.7,97,765/ as payable to the plaintiff tentatively. As per the plaintiff, there was no stipulation in the agreement for deduction of interest on the royalty paid by the defendants to the plaintiff. Plaintiff, thus, claimed that it was entitled to a sum of Rs.12,51,771/ and deductions made from the same were absolutely unauthorized and illegal. It was further the case of the plaintiff that in the month of September, 1998, ::: Downloaded on - 01/06/2020 20:22:59 :::HCHP 5 .

defendants paid an amount of Rs. 7,00,000/ to the plaintiff vide cheque, which was realized on 20.09.1998 and thus, balance amount payable by the defendants to the plaintiff on account of principal and interest came to Rs.6,27,373/. Details r to thereof as calculated by the plaintiff and as it stood mentioned in para 14 of the plaint are being reproduced hereinbelow: " i) Principal: Rs.7,97,79500

ii) Interest till the date of filing the suit @ 18% p.a.: Rs.5,29,60800

iii) Less the amount paid: () Rs.7,00,00000 Net balance: Rs.6,27,37300"

5. Plaintiff further claimed that it was not claiming an amount of Rs.4,54,006/ illegally and unauthorizedly deducted by the defendants as it was not having the requisite court fee to pay for the recovery of the said amount, however, as amount of Rs.7,97,795/, which was due to the plaintiff from the defendants even as per the details supplied to the plaintiff by the defendants vide communication dated 31.05.1996, was also not fully paid, therefore, the plaintiff was entitled to the balance amount thereof alongwith interest at the rate of 18% p.a., minus amount of Rs.7,00,000/, which stood received by it.

::: Downloaded on - 01/06/2020 20:22:59 :::HCHP 6

6. The relief claimed in the suit reads as under: "It is, therefore, prayed that a decree for a sum of Rs.6,27,373/ may be passed in favour of the plaintiff against the defendants alongwith future interest on the said amount at the rate of 18% p.a. from the date of institution of the suit till the realisation of the entire amount. The cost of the suit may also be awarded in favour of the plaintiff against the defendants. Any other relief to which the plaintiff is deemed entitled in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be granted in favour of the plaintiff and against the defendants"

7. Alongwith the suit, a miscellaneous application was filed under Order 2, Rule 2 of the Civil Procedure Code, praying for grant of leave to the plaintiff to institute a separate suit for claiming the amount from the defendants, which may be found due from the defendants to the plaintiff on account of the sale of the entire timber or any other unauthorized deductions made therefrom alongwith interest.

8. The suit was resisted by the defendants, who in the written statement, took preliminary objections with regard to the maintainability of the suit inter alia on the ground that plaintiff had no cause of action against the defendants and the suit was liable to be dismissed under Order 7, Rule 11 (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure. Another ::: Downloaded on - 01/06/2020 20:22:59 :::HCHP 7 .

objection taken was with regard to the maintainability of the suit on the ground that mandatory notice in terms of Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code was not served upon the defendants before filing of the suit.

9. On merit, the stand of the defendants was that an Agreement was entered into between the plaintiff and defendants dated 13.03.1992 for sale of 697 Deodar trees, however, plaintiff was trying to misinterpret the conditions of the agreement. There was no provision in the agreement that the sale of the forest produce of the lot in issue had to be completed within two years. Clause 6 (e) of the agreement provided that in case any amount becomes due on the basis of economics system, the difference was payable after entire sale proceeds stood received by the defendants and accounts were finalized. The Clause did not envisage any specific period for the sale of forest produce and finalization of the accounts. It was further the stand of the defendants that as per the procedure prevailing in the Corporation, the work of felling, conversion and carriage of lots was carried out on tender basis ::: Downloaded on - 01/06/2020 20:22:59 :::HCHP 8 .

and the forest produce so obtained was disposed of by way of open auction. Said process usually took time and accounts are prepared only after the entire forest produce was sold. It was further the stand of the defendants that in terms of the r to provisions of the agreement, payment of the value of the forest produce was to be released in four equal installments within duration of two years and the installments were to be worked out on tentative rates. The lot in issue was taken over in the year 1992 and in terms of the economics of the lot, the work of felling, conversion and carriage of the timber was completed by the end of the year 1994. In the course of the conversion of timber, plaintiff had asked the defendants for extraction of side slabs from the lot which was not provided in the economics and Agreement Deed. The conversion of side slabs which was undertaken on the asking of the plaintiff as well as their carriage and subsequent sale of side slabs took more time and even otherwise there was no condition in the agreement that the forest produce was to be sold within a stipulated period.

::: Downloaded on - 01/06/2020 20:22:59 :::HCHP 9

10. As per the defendants, the sale of the forest produce by way of auction was dependent upon the availability of the buyers and therefore also no time frame could be fixed for the purpose of the sale of the lots, yet r to defendants had made all efforts to sell the forest produce at the earliest and finalize the accounts. As per defendants that the work of the lot was initially allotted to S/Sh. Raj Kumar and Kundan Lal in the year 1992, but they failed to commence the work, as a result of which, fresh tenders were invited and the work was thereafter allotted in the month of November, 1992 to Shri Madan Lal Verma. The transportation of timber after conversion from road side depot to the sale depot started w.e.f. 16.09.1994 and was completed on 15.01.1995. The produce was sold at various auctions and details of the money paid to the plaintiff was as under: " Sr.No. Amount Date of payment

1. 7,78,000/ 15.05.1993

2. 10,00,000/ 06.08.1993

3. 25,00,000/ 29.03.1995

4. 6,90,800/ 29.03.1995

5. 7,00,000/ 28.08.1998

6. 4,00,000/ 08.02.1999

7. 2,00,000/ 18.02.1999

8. 1,00,000/ 10.03.1999 Rs. 63,68,800/."

::: Downloaded on - 01/06/2020 20:22:59 :::HCHP 10

11. It was further the stand of the defendants that the sale realisation of the lot was completed only in the month of January, 1999 and regular payments in fact were made to the plaintiff as and when part of sale amount stood received pursuant to auction. It was also the case of the defendants that finalization of the accounts of the lot was delayed by about six months on account of a complaint having been made by the members of the plaintiffCommittee against the contractor who was dealing with the lot. After the finalization of the accounts, the balance amount stood deposited with the Income Tax Authorities in terms of notice dated 16.03.1999, so received under Section 226 (3) of the Income Tax Act. The accounts of the plaintiff were approved finally on 27.05.1999 and final accounts stood supplied to the plaintiff on 23.06.1999. The details which were supplied to the plaintiff on 31.05.1996 were only tentative. On the basis of the final accounting which was done, deductions on account of interest on advance payment of royalty came to Rs.4,31,296/. Plaintiff ::: Downloaded on - 01/06/2020 20:22:59 :::HCHP 11 .

had agreed for the sale of the timber in terms of the economics system prevailing in the defendantsCorporation and the agreement provided for various deductions of expenses which were incurred in the course of business by the Corporation r to and it was clearly mentioned in communication dated 15.10.1983, which provided for deductions of various expenses by the Corporation, that interest at the rate of 18% p.a. would be deducted on the payments made in advance to the party.

As per the defendants, economics system was being applied with regard to all private sale cases of forest produce uniformly after 31.05.1996. Thus, the defendants took the stand that there was no merit in the suit and the same was liable to be dismissed as no unauthorized deduction was made and final payment to which the plaintiff was entitled to, stood already paid.

12. By way of replication, the plaintiff reiterated the stand taken by it in the plaint and denied the preliminary objections as well as the stand on merit taken by the defendants.

::: Downloaded on - 01/06/2020 20:22:59 :::HCHP 12

13. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, on 18.04.2000, this Court framed following issues for the purpose of adjudication of the suit:-

"1. Whether the suit is not maintainable for non compliance of section 80 CPC, as alleged, if so to what effect? OPD.

2. Whether the suit is liable to be dismissed under O.7, Rule 11 (d) CPC, as alleged? OPD.

3. Whether the suit has not been properly valued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction, if so, what is the correct valuation? OPD.

4. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover any amount from the defendants, if so to what extent? OPP.

5. whether the plaintiff has no cause of action, as alleged, if so to what effect? OPD.

6. Whether the suit has not been filed through a competent person, as alleged, if so, to what effect?

OPD.

7. Relief".

14. During the pendency of the suit, on account of the change in the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court, the matter was transferred to the Court of learned District Judge, Shimla, H.P., by this Court vide order dated 16.11.2001.

15. Learned Court below returned the following findings on the issues which were framed for the purpose of the adjudication of the suit and dismissed the suit: "Issue No.1 : Not pressed.

                  Issue No.2        :        Not pressed.
                  Issue No.3        :        Not pressed.




                                              ::: Downloaded on - 01/06/2020 20:22:59 :::HCHP
                                     13




                                                             .

                 Issue No.4     :        No.
                 Issue No.5     :        Yes.
                 Issue No.6     :        Not pressed.





                 Relief         :        Suit dismissed as per operative
                                         part of the judgment".

16. Issues No.1 to 3 and 6 were not pressed. Issue No.4 was decided against the plaintiff and issue No.5 stood decided in favour of the defendants. While deciding issue No.4 against the plaintiff, learned Court below primarily held that the accounts were finalized by the defendants in the year 1999 and PW2 Hira Singh (Chairman, Sale Committee of the plaintiff) admitted that during the pendency of the suit, defendants had made payment of Rs.97,000/ and as this payment was made by the defendants after the finalization of the accounts, therefore, plaintiff was not entitled to recover any amount from the defendants. Learned Court also held that the suit of the plaintiff seemed to be "fallacious" as the suit stood instituted on the basis of the tentative accounts furnished by the defendants vide letter dated 31.05.1996, especially as Hira Singh (PW2) admitted that deductions made by defendants on account of felling, conversion and carriage were not disputed as the same were justified.

::: Downloaded on - 01/06/2020 20:22:59 :::HCHP 14

Learned Court also held that perusal of agreement Ext.PW2/B demonstrated that defendants were not required to extract side slabs and there was no stipulation in the agreement that the entire forest produce was to be sold by the defendants r to within a period of two years from the date of agreement. In para 17 of the judgment, learned Court further went on to hold that the suit appeared to be time barred as in para 6 of the plaint it was mentioned that defendants were required to sell Deodar trees latest by 13.03.1994. As the sale proceeds of the forest produce became due on said date and as the suit was instituted after the expiry of two years i.e. the period provided in the agreement, therefore, the suit was hopelessly time barred as the same was preferred on 24.12.1998, whereas the same was liable to be instituted on or before 31.03.1997. On these basis, learned Trial Court decided issue No.4 against the plaintiff and thereafter, went on to hold that in view of the findings returned on issue No.4, plaintiff had no cause of action to file the suit, while deciding issue No.5 in favour of the defendants.

::: Downloaded on - 01/06/2020 20:22:59 :::HCHP 15

17. Feeling aggrieved, plaintiff has filed the present appeal.

18. Mr. Bhupender Gupta, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the appellant primarily argued that the r to judgment and decree passed by the learned Court below is not sustainable as the findings returned by the learned Court below were a result of complete misreading and misconstruction of the pleadings of the parties as well as evidence placed on record by the plaintiff, learned Senior Counsel argued that the learned Trial Court erred in dismissing the suit as being barred by limitation without appreciating that neither there was any such stand taken by the defendants in the written statement that the suit was time barred nor any issue in this regard was framed by the learned Court below.

19. Learned Senior Counsel further argued that otherwise also the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court is not sustainable in law as the Court erred in dismissing the suit of the plaintiff without realising that evidence on record ::: Downloaded on - 01/06/2020 20:22:59 :::HCHP 16 .

clearly and categorically demonstrated that the plaintiff was entitled for the relief prayed for. He argued that statements of the plaintiff's witnesses as well as documents produced on record by the plaintiff categorically pointed out that the r to amount which was due to the plaintiff, as was spelled out in the plaint, was not paid to the plaintiff and the payment which was made at the relevant time was deficient. He further argued that as the Corporation was charging interest at the rate of 18% p.a. from the plaintiff in terms of the agreement, therefore, plaintiff was also entitled for interest at the rate of 18% p.a. on the payment which was wrongly withheld by the defendants. Learned Senior Counsel also argued that the learned Trial Court erred in dismissing the suit simply on the ground that the suit stood instituted on the basis of tentative accounts furnished by the defendants without realising that on the basis of said tentative accounts itself, payments were made by the defendants to the plaintiff and otherwise also in the written statement which was filed by the defendants, there was no categorical assertion to the ::: Downloaded on - 01/06/2020 20:22:59 :::HCHP 17 .

effect that balance amount of Rs.97,795/ (approximately) alongwith interest on the principal in the sum of Rs.7,97,795/, stood counted for in the subsequent payments made by the defendants to the plaintiff. He thus, prayed that r to the suit be allowed as prayed for by setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned Court below.

20. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents/ defendants argued that there was no infirmity in the judgment and decree passed by the learned Court below and the suit stood rightly dismissed as the same was both barred by limitation and otherwise also, the plaintiff was not entitled for the relief claimed therein. He argued that the evidence on record clearly demonstrated that after finalization of the accounts, due and admissible payments stood made to the plaintiff except the deductions which were made on account of tax liability as well as the deductions to which the defendants were entitled to in terms of the economics system, which governed the sale transaction of trees between the plaintiff and the defendants. He further submitted that the ::: Downloaded on - 01/06/2020 20:22:59 :::HCHP 18 .

learned Trial Court on the strength of pleadings of the parties as well as the evidence placed on record correctly held that the plaintiffs was not entitled to any relief as claimed in the suit especially in view of the statement of PW2 Hira Singh, who r to had categorically admitted that full and final payment stood received on behalf of the plaintiff. He thus, prayed that the appeal being devoid of any merit be dismissed with costs.

21. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the judgment and decree passed by the learned Court below as well as the pleadings and evidence on record.

22. As I have already mentioned hereinabove, the judgment and decree passed by the learned Court below stand assailed by way of this appeal inter alia on the ground that dismissal of the suit of the plaintiff on the ground of limitation is not sustainable in law as neither this was the stand of the defendants in the written statement filed by them nor any issue in this regard stood framed.

::: Downloaded on - 01/06/2020 20:22:59 :::HCHP 19

23. A perusal of the pleadings demonstrates that there was no objection taken by the defendants therein that the suit was barred by limitation. To the contrary, if the contents of the written statement are read harmoniously, the inference r to which can be drawn from the same is that the stand of the defendants before the learned Trial Court was that the suit was premature as it was based upon tentative accounts furnished by the defendants vide letter dated 31.05.1996, whereas the accounts were to be finalized and settled after the sale of the entire timber. In fact, averments in the written statement are to the effect that the entire realisation of sale amount was completed in the month of January, 1999 and in terms of the agreement entered into between the plaintiff and defendants, final installment was to be paid only after complete sale amount was realised. In para 9 of the written statement, there is a categorical assertion that the account of the plaintiff was finalized on 27.05.1999 and copy of final accounts was supplied to the plaintiff on 30.06.1999. This clearly demonstrates that there was no objection taken in the ::: Downloaded on - 01/06/2020 20:22:59 :::HCHP 20 .

written statement by the defendants to the effect that the suit filed by the plaintiff was beyond limitation. However, without appreciating the respective stand of the parties, learned Court held the suit to be barred by limitation by returning a cursory r to finding that as in para 6 of the plaint, it was mentioned that defendants were required to sell Deodar trees by 13.03.1994 and as the sale proceeds of the forest produce became due on that date and as the suit was not instituted within three years after the expiry of period of 13.03.1994, hence, the suit was barred by limitation. The method which has been adopted by the learned Court below to hold that the suit was barred by limitation especially in the absence of there being any issue framed in this regard or any objection to this effect having been taken by the defendants is nothing, but callous. This Court is not oblivious to the fact that point of limitation is a legal issue and can be raised at any stage, but fact of the matter still remains that as the same was not raised by way of written statement by the defendants and no issue was framed to this effect as to whether the suit was barred by limitation ::: Downloaded on - 01/06/2020 20:22:59 :::HCHP 21 .

or not, therefore, neither of the parties got the opportunity to make submissions in this regard before the learned Court below.

24. Thus, the suit has been dismissed by the learned r to Trial Court by holding the same to be barred by limitation without affording any opportunity of being heard in this regard to the plaintiff.

25. Principals of natural justice, in my considered view, have to be adhered to even in the adjudication of Civil Suits, meaning thereby that a party cannot be condemned by a Court on a point or an issue upon which it has not been given an opportunity to address itself before the Court. This Court is also not oblivious to the fact that non framing of issues is not fatal in each and every case. It is settled law that if the parties are aware of the stand which have been respectively taken by them and have had an opportunity to put forth their respective contention in that regard, then non framing of Issue is not fatal. However, coming to the facts of this case, as I have already mentioned hereinabove, neither it ::: Downloaded on - 01/06/2020 20:22:59 :::HCHP 22 .

was the case of the defendants that the suit was time barred nor record demonstrates that at any stage the plaintiff was put to a caveat by the learned Court below that the suit appeared to be barred by limitation. In this background, r to dismissal of the suit by the learned Court below by holding that the same was barred by limitation is not sustainable in law.

26. Besides, a perusal of the judgment and decree under challenge demonstrates that while deciding issue No.4, learned Court below dismissed the suit by holding that the suit was barred by limitation and further that the suit of the plaintiff seemed to be "fallacious" as PW2 Hira Singh had admitted that deductions which stood made by the defendants on account of felling, conversion and carrying of trees were not in dispute and that during the pendency of the suit, defendants have made payments of Rs.97,000/ after finalization of the accounts.

27. The findings which have been returned by the learned Court below to the effect that the plaintiff was not ::: Downloaded on - 01/06/2020 20:22:59 :::HCHP 23 .

entitled to the relief as prayed for in the suit are also not sustainable as the same are not backed by any substantial reasoning by the learned Court below. It is not understood as to how and on what premise, learned Court below came to the r to conclusion that the suit filed by the plaintiff was fallacious, simply because it was based upon tentative accounts furnished by the defendants vide Ext.PW2/H i.e. letter dated 31.05.1996. The word 'fallacious' means 'based on wrong or incorrect information'. When the suit was filed by the plaintiff on the basis of accounts may be tentatively furnished by the defendants vide letter dated 31.05.1996, it is not understood as to how the suit could be said to be fallacious as being based upon wrong or incorrect information.

28. Whether or not the plaintiff was entitled for the relief prayed for is a separate issue, but by no stretch of imagination, in my considered view, it could be said that the suit seemed to be fallacious. In fact, it appears from the perusal of paras 14 to 17 of the judgment passed by the learned Court below that the learned Court below had already ::: Downloaded on - 01/06/2020 20:22:59 :::HCHP 24 .

made up its mind to dismiss the suit and the reasoning assigned therein was just to achieve the desired end.

29. I have carefully perused the statement of PW2 Hira Singh. In his examinationinchief, this witness has r to stated that during the pendency of the suit, defendants had made a payment of Rs.97,000/, which they had withheld deliberately and as defendants themselves had deducted 18% interest from the plaintiff in transportation, therefore, the same rate of interest was being claimed by the plaintiff on the delayed payment. However, a perusal of the judgment passed by the learned Court below demonstrates that this statement of PW2 has been read and used selectively by the learned Court below to hold that as Rs.97,000/ stood paid to the plaintiff during the pendency of the suit, therefore, nothing survives therein.

30. While coming to the said conclusion, learned Court below erred in not appreciating that in terms of the tentative accounts which were furnished to the plaintiff by the defendants vide letter dated 31.05.1996, as the plaintiff was ::: Downloaded on - 01/06/2020 20:22:59 :::HCHP 25 .

entitled for an amount of Rs.7,97,795/, out of which only Rs.7,00,000/ was paid and Rs.97,795/ was paid later on, then at least as from the date, the principal and the balance amount was due and till date the same was actually paid, the r to plaintiff was entitled for interest upon delayed payments until and unless the defendants were able to justify the delay reasonably and substantively. This extremely important aspect of the matter has been ignored by the learned Court below while dismissing the suit.

31. Thus, obviously in view of what has been discussed hereinabove, the judgment and decrees passed by the learned Lower Court are not sustainable in law. However, fact of the matter remains that a suit for recovery was filed on behalf of the plaintiff on the basis of communication dated 31.05.1996, vide which the details of amount realised out of the sale of the trees of the plaintiff, tentatively was intimated to the plaintiff.

It is a matter on record that before the adjudication of the Civil Suit, the entire timber of the plaintiff stood sold and sale proceeds stood realised thereof by the Corporation and ::: Downloaded on - 01/06/2020 20:22:59 :::HCHP 26 .

payments also stood made to the plaintiff. The case of the plaintiff is that still certain amounts are payable to the plaintiff and certain deductions made are not sustainable in law being contrary to the terms of the Agreement.

32. Be that as it may, the option before this Court is either to allow the plaintiff to file a fresh suit in this regard or to relegate the matter back to the learned Trial Court to return a finding as to whether any amount is still payable to the plaintiff even after sale of the entire forest produce in terms of the prayer made in the plaint. In my considered view, interest of justice demands that this Court should resort to the latter option. This is for the reason that in case plaintiff is called upon to file a fresh suit, then the same would lead to multiplicity of litigation, whereas as the parties have already led their respective evidence in support of their respective contentions which were so raised before the learned Trial Court, it would be in the interest of justice if the matter is remanded back to the learned Trial Court to determine afresh ::: Downloaded on - 01/06/2020 20:22:59 :::HCHP 27 .

the issues raised in the suit in the light of observations made hereinabove.

33. This appeal is accordingly allowed. Judgment and decree, dated 21.02.2008, passed by the Court of learned r to Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Shimla, H.P. in Civil Suit RBT No.4S/1 of 2005/99, titled as Devi Sahiba Maheshwari Shari Versus Himachal Pradesh State Forest Corporation, Shimla & another, are set aside and the matter is remanded back to the learned Trial Court for adjudication afresh in the light of the observations made hereinabove.

Parties are directed to appear before the learned Court below on 01.07.2020 and if possible, learned Court below should make an endeavour to decide the Civil Suit before 31.12.2020.

Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.

(Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge May 29, 2020 (Rishi) ::: Downloaded on - 01/06/2020 20:22:59 :::HCHP

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Himachal Pradesh High Court