The doctrine of frustration under Section 56 of the Indian Contract Act requires the party alleging frustration to prove that the performance of the contract has become impossible and that the impossibility is not self-induced or due to negligence.

Defendant is the appellant. Plaintiff entered into an agreement (Ext. B1) with the defendant for supply of 15000 tons of eucalyptus hybrid from Arimalam Plantations of Pudukottai and 3000 tons of eucalyptus grandis from Cinchona Plantations 1, 2 and 3 of Coimbatore South Division and Kambamettu of Madurai South Division. Materials were to be supplied to the depot of the defendant at Pollachi. The plantations from which the plaintiff agreed to supply the firewood belonged to Tamil Nadu Forest Plantation Corporation and it was leased to the plaintiff.

2. Ext. B1 agreement provides that eucalyptus hybrid and grandis with a girth of 12" x 24" and with a length of 1 to 2 metres have to be supplied to the defendant. Rupees 15,000/- was deposited by the plaintiff as security towards the performance of the contract. Though some quantities of firewood were supplied, plaintiff wrote Ext. B2 letter to the defendant on 27-3-1976 stating that due to difficulties in arranging lorries and labour he found it difficult to supply the specified firewood. Plaintiff informed the defendant that he should make his own arrangements to get the timber.

3. The gist of the plaintiff's case is that at the time of contract he was not aware of the non-availability of the specified type of eucalyptus firewood and he became aware of the shortage only later and so he could not perform his part of the contract for which he cannot be held liable. In Ext. A10 notice dated 17-7-1976 plaintiff complained that defendant refused to accept the supply of eucalyptus firewood on the ground that they are not of the specified girth. It is also stated in Ext. A10 that the plaintiff is unable to supply the type of firewood described in Ext. B1 as they are not available in Arimalam Plantations. In Ext. B2 which was sent long prior to Ext. A10 notice plaintiff did not have a case that the specified type of firewood was not available in Arimalam Plantations and Cinchona Plantations. In Ext. B2 the difficulty stated by the plaintiff was on account of transport and labour problems.

4. In Ext. A4 letter sent to the defendant-plaintiff stated that more than 3/4 of the Arimalam Plantations constitute trees of natural growth and that he is not in a position to supply the specified category of firewood. Defendant sent Ext. A5 reply on 24-3-1976 impressing upon the plaintiff the necessity to get the specified type of firewood and nothing but that.

5. P.W. 2 stated that he was threatened and coerced to sign Exts. B2 and B3. Apart from the ipse dixit of P.W. 2 there is nothing to show that defendant exerted any act of coercion on him. Evidence of P.W. 2 that he did not know the contents of Exts. B2 and B3 is indeed difficult to be believed. It is pertinent to note that P.W. 2 did not say a word about threat or coercion in his chief examination. There is total lack of evidence in support of the aforesaid plea.

6. Plaintiffs case is that the specified category of firewood was not available in Arimalam Plantations and so he could not supply it to the defendant. Regarding non-availability of the specified category of firewood there is only the interested evidence of P. W. 1. The trial Court held that plaintiff is entitled to avoid the agreement to supply the specified category of firewood as they are not available in the Arimalam Plantations. Mere non-availability cannot absolve the plaintiff of his liability under the agreement. When plaintiff sent Ext. A2 letter to the defendant he did not have such a case. At the time when the plaintiff entered into agreement with the defendant every opporunity was available to him to ascertain the availability of the specified category of firewood and if he, did not avail of it he alone need be blamed and not the defendant. Moreover, plaintiff could have taken out a commission to establish that firewood of the contracted variety was not available from Arimalam Plantations. As evidence is lacking regarding the non-availability of the firewood plain