SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.-- This is a petition for special leave to appeal from the judgment and decree dated 15-12-1979 of the Lahore High Court.
2. On the basis of a tender invited by the Provincial Government the petitioner entered into an agreement with the Provincial Government for the purchase of 1,800 tons of flood damaged wheat from different centres in the Province including the one at Jahania at the rate of Rs.3/12 per Maund for the purpose of exporting the same to India. As it happened the petitioner was able to pick-up only 525 tons in all and that too from only some of the centres. None was offered to it from the centre at Jahania. Both parties levelled counter-allegations of breach of contract and filed separate suits for recovery of damages from each other. The petitioner claimed a sum of Rs.60,000 from the Provincial Government. This sum included the amount of security as well as the excess payments made by it in respect of the wheat not made available. On its part, the Provincial Government claimed Rs.30,010-14-11 on account of the loss suffered by the omission of the petitioner to lift all the wheat offered to it. The two suits were consolidated by the trial Court and tried together. By its judgment dated 26-4-1962 the learned trial Court dismissed the suit of the Provincial Government but partly decreed that of the petitioner. It awarded a sum of Rs.37,170 to the petitioner. This amount represented the difference in price between the rate at which the petitioner had agreed to purchase the wheat from the centre at Jahania and the rate at which the Provincial Government sold the same to another organization.
3. From the judgment and decree of the trial Court the Provincial Government preferred two appeals, one against the dismissal of its own suit and the other against the decree awarded to the petitioner. On its part the petitioner preferred cross-objections. By the judgment impugned in this petition the High Court dismissed the appeal of the Provincial Government in respect of its own suit.
It also dismissed the cross---objections preferred by the petitioner and partly modified the decree granted to it after holding that the petitioner was entitled only to the refund of the security and the excess amount it had paid in connection with the purchase of the wheat. The petitioner now seeks leave to appeal from this Court.
4. It appears that the wheat lying at Jahania centre was of superior quality. For this reason the Provincial Government was able to sell it at a higher rate than the one offered by the petitioner. The learned trial Court was of the view that the petitioner was entitled to recover from the Provincial Government the amount representing the difference between the rate offered by the petitioner and the rate at which the Provincial Government had sold the wheat lying at that centre. The learned Judges in the High Court set aside the finding of the learned trial Court in this regard (and, for that reason the petitioner's claim for damages) after holding that there was no agreement between the parties that any specific quantity of wheat from any particular centre would be offered to the petitioner. In this context they observed:--- "Therefore, we are quite clear in our mind that the learned trial Court was in error in holding that the company was entitled to the wheat 'mentioned against Jahanian in the letter of the Secretary to the Government (Exh. P-4) and for non-supply it was entitled to damages when the company had not placed all the cards on the table and the initial contract Exh.P-1 and Exh.P-3 did not provide for specific quantities from each centre and the parties have been going about supplying and picking from wherever they liked and as much as they liked."
The learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show us that the above observations of the learned Judges in the High Court are not based upon proper appreciation of the evidence on record. We would, therefore, dismiss this petition.