The unsuccessful plaintiff in O.S. No.153 of 1987 on the file of Principal Subordinate Judge, Guntur, had preferred this appeal and inasmuch as the appellant died, her legal representatives were brought on record in CMP No.3337 of 2001, dated 31-3-2001, and at present they are prosecuting the present litigation. The respondent in the appeal, the defendant in the suit, is Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Oil Seeds Growers Federation Limited, a Co-operative concern. The parties hereinafter would be referred to as the plaintiff and the defendant for the purpose of convenience.

2. The plaintiff filed the aforesaid suit for recovery of Rs.82,080/- towards damages with subsequent interest and also for costs of the suit. The defendant resisted the said suit. The learned Judge recorded the evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, D.W.1 and also marked Exs.A-1 to A-18 and Exs.B-1 to B-5 and ultimately came to the conclusion that the plaintiff is not entitled to the relief prayed for and dismissed the suit. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal is preferred.

CONTENTIONS OF SRI D. HANUMANTHA

3. Sri D. Hanumantha Rao, learned counsel representing the present appellants while making elaborate submissions had pointed out to the whole correspondence available on record in general and also to Exs.A-1, A-2, A-4 and Exs.B-1 to B-4 in particular and would maintain that even in the light of this correspondence or the material placed before this Court, the Doctrine of Frustration is not applicable and hence the learned Judge had ad0pted a wrong approach in appreciating the evidence available on record. The counsel would maintain that in the light of the dates as can be seen from Exs.A-1, A-2 and B-1 to B-4, it is clear that there is no supervening impossibility so as to apply the Doctrine of Frustration and on the other hand the applicability of the said Doctrine to be negatived inasmuch as the Doctrine of Forseability is applicable to the case on hand. The learned counsel had taken this Court through the contents of EX.A-4 in detail and also placed strong reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in Travancore Devaswom Board v. Thanath International1. While further elaborating his submissions the learned counsel also had pointed out to the language employed in Section 56 of the Indian Contract Act and would explain that in the light of the language, it cannot be said that the said Doctrine is applicable to the facts on hand. The learned counsel also had explained the conditions relating to the supply within the State and supply outside the State and in the absence of any evidence in relation thereto, the learned counsel explained that the burden of proof lies on the defendant and would maintain that the defendant was unable to discharge the said burden, whereas clear proof is available as far as the damages suffered by the plaintiff are concerned. The evidence of P. W. 1 and also P. W.2 is available in relation to the difference of price or the increase in price and the damage actually suffered by the plaintiff, and in that regard the counsel placed strong reliance on Ex.A-18 and also would comment that there was no cross-examination to P. Ws.1 and 2 in relation to EX.A-18 and this aspect may have to be taken into consideration. The learned counsel also had further explained about Exs.A-7, A-12 and A-15 and the other documentary evidence in detail and would maintain that in the light of the documentary evidence available inasmuch as there is clear proof of damage suffered by the plaintiff because of the difference of rate, the learned Judge should have decreed the suit instead of dismissing the suit. While making elaborate submissions the learned counsel had pointed out to several of the findings which had been recorded by the learned Judge and would comment that the said findings cannot withstand the legal scrutiny.

CONTENTIONS OF SRI BALRAM REDDY

4. Per contra, Sri Balram Reddy, learned counsel representing the respondent, defendant would contend that the o