Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

5. It   was   averred   that   the   appellants   did   not comply with the aforesaid order within the stipulated time and also mixed up the timber belonging to the plaintiff with the timber of three other cases and eventually held auction .

on 04.11.1988 without any intimation to the plaintiff. It was averred   that   on   inquiry   the   proforma   respondent No.3/defendant   No.5   had   orally   informed   the plaintiff/respondent No.1 that the timber belonging to him had   been   sold   for   sale   consideration   of   Rs.1,08,789/­, whereas   the   entire   lot   of   timber   had   been   sold   for Rs.5,99,313/­.   Admittedly,   the   plaintiff/respondent   No.1 was   paid   Rs.1,08,789/­,   however,   his   claim   was   that   in November, 1988, his timber as per the rates determined  by defendants No. 4 and 5 vide letter dated 19.4.1988 was to be sold for Rs.2,31,046/­ and not Rs.1,08,789/­ and, therefore, he was entitled to the short­fall of  Rs.1,22,257/­ alongwith interest   at the rate of 18% per annum from 27.10.1988 to 31.07.1997   and   in   this   manner   he   was   entitled   to   the following amount: Rs.1,22,257/­+ Rs.1,92,785/­(on account of interest) = Rs.3,15,042/­.

.

Not only this, he had taken the timber to the road head and, therefore, the forest  officials had rightly seized the timber.

The plaintiff had been prosecuted and he was acquitted, but the   same   was   on   technical   grounds.     They   admitted   the factual aspect with regard to the legal proceedings, but they denied that Belmu and others had sold the Deodar and Kail trees   to   the   plaintiff.   It   was   further   averred   that   the defendants had rightly stacked the forest produce and they were not negligent in keeping  or disposing  of the same. It was further averred that the claim of the plaintiff for rates of timber   issued   by   proforma   respondents   No.   2   and   3   on 19.4.1988   was   held   to   be   baseless   and,   therefore,   the plaintiff was not entitled to the amount of Rs.1,22,257/­ or interest thereon.

i) Whether the State of H.P. and its servants were negligent in protecting the timber from the date of its seizure upto the date of its auction and due to such negligence the timber got damaged as alleged? OPP
ii) Whether the defendants No. 4 and 5 were also negligent in disposing of the timber under the orders of the Court and they did not take suitable measures and steps to sell the timber at prevailing market rate? OPP

16. PW­1   R.S.   Jaswal,   who   had   been   working   as   Sub Divisional Manager had produced the record relating to the sale of timber in question. Ex.P­1 was the price list of sale of timber of

17.

r to November, 1988. The timber belonging to the plaintiff as per list Ex.P­2 had been sold  vide document Ex.P­3.

PW­2   Ramesh   Negi   was   Assistant   Manager   of defendant   No.4   and   had   taken   possession   of   the   timber   vide document Ex.P­4 on 14.09.1988.