A party to a contract who has taken advantage under the contract is bound to restore it to the other party if the contract becomes impossible to perform due to a supervening event.

C. B. BHARGAVA, J.

( 1 ) THIS is an appeal by the defendant against the judgment and decree of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Gangapur dated 25th July, 1955 decreeing the plaintiffs suit for a sum of Rs. 2500/- with proportionate costs and interest pendente lite and future at 6 per cent p. a.

( 2 ) THE suit was filed for recovery of Rs. 5100/-on the ground that the defendant gave to the plaintiff a contract for cutting Babool trees from lands belonging to Thikana Akra for a period of three years in lieu of Rs. 2500/ -. The terms of the contract were reduced to writing and are contained in the patta Ex. 4 dated 10th July, 1948. It was for the period commencing from 7th July, 1948 to 7th July, 1951. Rs. 2500/- were to be paid to thy defendant in the following manner: Rs. 1000/- at the commencement of the contract Rs. 1000/- on 7th July, 1949. Rs. 500/- on 7th January, 1950. In case the amounts were not paid on the stipulated dates plaintiff was to pay interest at the rate of 12 per cent p. a. from the date of default.

( 3 ) PLAINTIFFs case was that he had paid Rs. 1000/,- on 7th July, 1948, Rs. 1000/- on 14th August, 1949 and Rs. 200/- on 24th May, 1950 and credit for Rs. 110/- was to be given for loom Patri (leaves of the Babool trees); but before the expiry of the term of the contract an Ordinance prohibiting the cutting of trees without licence came into force on 21st June, 1949. Thereafter he requested the defendant to obtain the required permission but the defendant declined to do so and asked the plaintiff to obtain the same and agreed to pay whatever expenses were incurred by the plaintiff in that connection. Plaintiff accordingly applied for permission which was refused by the Government on 29th May, 1953 (Ex. 7) and spent Rs. 300/- which he is also entitled to recover from the defendant as per his agreement. He further claimed Rs. 1200/-as interest on the amount advanced by him to the defendant. A further claim for Rs. 1290/- was made in respect of the profits which the plaintiff might have made if he had cut the trees for full three years. Thus the suit was filed for recovery of Rs. 5100/- against the defendant. The defendant admitted the contract and also the receipt of Rs. 1000/- on 7th July, 1948. However, the receipt of other items was denied by him and further denied his liability to pay any amount for the expenses incurred by the plaintiff in obtaining permission from the authorities concerned, or for the amount of interest or profits which the plaintiff had claimed. He raised a specific plea in the written statement that the plaintiff under the contract had cut the trees and was therefore, not entitled to recover any money from the defendant. Substantially the plaintiffs case was that there had been a frustration of the

ontract as after it circumstances came into existence which made its further performance impossible. Cutting of trees without licence became unlawful under the provisions of the Rajasthan Removal of Trees (Regulation) Ordinance (No. 8 of 1949) (hereinafter called) the Ordinance ). Section 4 of the Ordinance provided with regard to the cutting of trees by the land holder and tenants. Section 5 provided that: "except as provided in Section 4 no trees shall be removed except under and in accordance with a licence" and these licences were to be obtained on an application to the Sub-Divisional Officer Or other officer of equal status having jurisdiction for the issue of a licence in that behalf. Contravention of the provisions of this Ordinance were made punishable under Section 6 of the Ordinance. The learned Senior Civil Judge framed the following issues: 1. Is the suit within limitation? 2. Is the patta Ex. 4 inadmissible in evidence? 3. Whether the plaintiff in addition to the payment of Rs. 1000/- dated 7-7-48 has paid Rs. 1000/- to the defendant on 14th August, 1949 and Rs. 200/- on 24-5-50 and whether he could get Rs. 110/- for Loom Patri. Whether the plaintiff can recover the total