Section 70 of the Contract Act can be invoked to recover expenses incurred in providing training or education, even in the absence of a written agreement, provided that the recipient has enjoyed the benefit of the training and the provider did not intend to act gratuitously.

1. This second appeal has been filed by the defendant against the judgement and decree dated 20th July, 1976 of the Additional District Judge, Chandigarh.

2. Briefly the facts are that in pursuance of advertisement dated 20-8-1951 issued by the Punjab Public Service Commission, Simla, for the post of Stipendiary Probationers for the Superior Forest Course at the Indian Forest College, Dehra Dun, the defendant applied and was selected by the Commission. He joined the Forest Department for preliminary practical training on 20-11-1951 and underwent the training until 17th March, 1952. On completion of the training he joined the Indian Forest College at Dehra Dun on 1st April, 1952. After successful completion of the training, he was to be appointed as PFS Class I Officer. It is averred that according to the conditions of the advertisement, the selected candidates were required to sign an agreement to the effect that they would serve the Department for not less than 5 years and in case they failed to do so, they would refund all the monies spent by the Government on their training and education. The bond, however, could not be got signed from the defendant.

3. In September, 1952, he left the College without sanction of the Government and joined the Central Police Training College at Abu as he had been selected in I.P.S. The defendant was requested to return the amount of Rs. 3250/- spent by the plaintiff on him but he did not do so. Thereafter the Government started deducting the amount from the pay of the defendant who had by then joined the service as an I.P.S. Officer. He resisted the recovery of the amount and instituted a suit for declaration that the Government was not entitled to deduct the amount from his salary which was decreed by the trial Court on 21st June, 1960. An appeal by the State against that decree was dismissed. The State came up in second appeal to this Court which was withdrawn considering that the remedy of the State was by way of a Civil suit. Consequently it instituted a suit for recovery of Rs. 3,250/- against the defendant.

4. The defendant contested the suit. He admitted that he underwent preliminary training till 17th March, 1952 and left the Indian Forest College, Dehra Dun, thereafter. However, he pleaded that he was under no legal obligation to get prior sanction of the Government for leaving the College. He further stated that no agreement was executed between the parties regarding the refund of the amount in case he did not join the service and, therefore, he was not liable to refund the same. He admitted that there was previous litigation between the parties and pleaded that the present suit was barred by the principle of res judicata. He also stated that the plaintiff was estopped from filing the suit.

5. The trial Court held that the suit was not barred by the principle of res judicata and that the plaintiff was entitled to recover Rs. 3,085.15P. from the defendant under S.70, Contract Act. Therefore, the suit of the plaintiff was decreed for recovery of Rs. 3,085.15P. with proportionate costs.

6. The defendant went up in appeal before the Additional District Judge who affirmed the judgement and decree of the trial Court and dismissed the same. He has come up in second appeal to this Court.

7. The first question that arises for determination is as to whether the present suit is barred by principle of res judicata. The appellant, who himself argued the appeal, has contended that in the previous suit the respondent could take a plea that it was entitled to recover the amount under S.70, Contract Act which it failed to do. Consequently it is not entitled to file a suit on that ground which is barred by virtue of Explanation IV to S.11, Civil P.C.

8. I have duly considered the argument but do not find any substance therein. The earlier suit by the appellant was for declaration to the effect that the order of the State ordering deduction of Rs. 3,250/- from his pay was illegal and was, ther