Law: Contract Act (IX of 1872)

Section: 56

Law: Essential Commodities (Control of Distribution) Order, 1956

Section: 3(2),6

Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Section: 2,1

  Contract Act (IX of 1872)----S. 56-Contract of sale Frustration-Truck chassis imported by B not on commercial but special licence granted under Export Incentive Scheme-Sale of chassis in advance by B to C in bona fide belief that B was com petent to deliver chassis on arrival to any person of his own choice Controller General, on arrival of chassis, acting under Essential Commodities (Control of Distribution) Order, 1953 directing B to deliver chassis to persons other than C thus leaving no choice in matter with B-Provisions of S. 56, held, attracted Essential Commodities (Control of Distribution) Order, 1953,.cls. 3 (2) & 6.   Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)----O. VI, r. 2 & O. VII, r. 1-Pleadings-Party cannot prove case different from what has been pleaded.   A party cannot prove a case different from what has been pleaded by it. Where, therefore, in a plaint an amount of Rs. 24,300 had been claimed as liquidated damages whereas in evi dence it was alleged that this amount had actually been paid to the defendants and the plaintiff claimed refund of it, it was held that the plaintiff could not be allowed proof of what had not been pleaded despite fact that the temptation to examine on merits the assertion of actual payment may be great.   Dates of hearing : 7th, 15th and 16th December 1965.   JUDGMENT   These are two connected suits on identical facts and the defendants in both of them are the same. These suits arise out of two identical contracts of sale of truck chasis by the defend4nt5 to the plaintiffs in the two suits. The claim in each is for the recovery of Rs. 48,000. Of this Rs. 23,700 is claimed as the refund of the amount admittedly paid by the plaintiffs to the defendants and the remaining Rs, 24,300 is claimed as the agreed amount of liquidated damages in both the suits. By agre ment of parties it was ordered on 14th May 1965, that both these suits be heard and disposed of together and all the evidence which is common be read in both the suits. This judgment will, therefore, dispose of both these suits.   2. The plaintiff in Suit No. 165/60 is Yusuf s/o Haji Muhammad and in Suit No. 166/60 it is Usman…