ABDUR REHMAN KHAN, J.--In this appeal the judgment and decree of the learned Senior Civil Judge dated 11-4-1984 have been impugned whereby the suit of the plaintiffs-appellants for declaration or in the alternative for recovery of Rs.1,02,607 was dismissed. Plaintiffs-appellants is a registered Firm consisting of Mohammad Aslam Khan and Munsif Khan as its partners. The present suit was filed by the plaintiffs for a declaration that the defendants have illegally retained in their possession 26 Blue-pine trees, 121 trees of Fir and spruce and 4 trees of Deodar and that the plaintiffs are entitled to the possession and sale of these trees. In the alternative recovery of Rs.92,607 as price of the said trees and Rs.10,000 on account of security was prayed for.
2. It was narrated in the plaint that initially 992 trees of different species in Jacha Guzara in Siran Forest Division were sold to the plaintiffs by the defendants for sale amount of Rs.4,00,134/13 and the agreement dated 9-5--1959 containing terms and conditions of the bargain was executed between the parties on 9-5-1959. It was stipulated in the agreement that the sale price will be paid in four equal instalments and that the period of contract would be valid upto 31-12-1962. It was averred that in spite of imposition of Martial Law during the contract period and unfavourable circumstances the plaintiffs laboured hard and were able to pay the entire sale price. It was further alleged that the defendants in violation of the agreement forced the plaintiffs to purchase 608 more trees as supplementary marking at the same rate which they .Paid for the trees purchased at the first instance and the price thereof came to Rs.2,87,024. The defendants pressed hard for payment of this amount in spite of the fact that it was payable with the last instalment but on account of great pressure and annihilative threats the plaintiffs were obliged to pay this amount also. Thus it was stated that the plaintiffs paid up the entire sale consideration amounting to Rs.6,87,158 plus the security amount of Rs.10,000. It was further stated that the defendants were bound under the rules and usages of trade to have extended the period of contract by one year in order to enable the plaintiffs to cut and transport the subsequently sold 608 trees. It was also stated that in view of the reluctance of the plaintiffs to purchase the additional trees the defendants had assured and promised the extension of time on account of the additional sale to him. On the complaint of the local people the then D.F.O. And Range Officer were proceeded against by the Anti-Corruption Department and due to this enquiry the plaintiffs were also stopped from cutting the trees under the contract. In these circumstances it was alleged that the plaintiffs were fully entitled to extension of time but in spite of repeated demands for this purpose the defendants refused the extension on the pretext that the enquiry by Anti-Corruption Staff was then in progress and non-availability of the relevant documents. It was stated that the plaintiffs were unable to cut and transport 26 blue pine trees, 121 trees of fir and spruce and 4 trees of Deodar of the admitted price of Rs.92,607 as such the defendants are liable to hand over trees to the plaintiffs or to pay its price to them. The defendants contested the suit and in their written statement held the plaintiffs responsible for violation of the terms of the contract and their negligence and inertness was described as the main cause of their failure to complete the agreement within the given time. It was further stated that the defendants in no way could be blamed for breach of the contract and that they had proceeded in the matter completely in accordance with the stipulation as embodied in the agreement. To support the claim the plaintiffs examined P.W.1 Sanaullah Assistant, Office of Conservator of Forest who brought a letter Exh.P.W.1/1 dated 17-1-1962 on record purporting to be from C.F. Abbottabad to C.C.F.N-.W.F.P. Whereby for the reason given therein it was recommended that the period of contract may be extended from 1-4-1962 to 30-9-1962. Another letter Exh.P.W.l/2 of 5-1-1966 from C.F. Abbottabad to C.C.F. Peshawar wherein details of the trees and other items of the contract has been given. Similarly Exh.P.W.l/3, 1/4 and 1/5 are also to the same effect while Exh.P.W.l/6 contains the comments offered by the plaintiffs. P.W.2 Sheikh Inayatullah Sup dt. Office of the Chief Conservator also exhibited various letters on record which are Exhs.P.W.2/1 to 2/6 & these relates to various correspondence between the concerned officer in respect of the dispute between the plaintiffs and the defendants. P.W.3 Munawar Mir Head Clerk also exhibited various letters etc. And the application submitted by the plaintiffs for extension of time in the agreement. Munsif Khan plaintiff appeared as his own witness and almost reiterated whatever was stated in the plaint. The defendants examined Syed Muhammad Konain. D.F.O. Siran Forest Division as D.W.1 as the only witness who deposed to the contract, the relevant facts related thereto and the contravention of the contract committed by the plaintiffs.
3. The learned trial Court on adverse decision against the plaintiffs on the following issues dismissed their suit:- Issue No.7. Whether plaintiffs are entitled to the declaration prayed for by them ?
Issue No. B. Whether the plaintiffs in the alternative are entitled to a decree for a sum ofRs.1,02,607 at the rate of 6% from 31-12-1962 till the recovery of the suit ?
Issue No.2. Whether the plaintiffs are estopped by their conduct to bring the present suit ?
4. Khawaja Abdur Rashid the learned counsel representing the appellants at the very outset submitted that he would not press the first relief as its decree after a lapse of such a time and also in the peculiar circumstances would not be possible in his favour. So we have to see the entitlement of the appellants in respect of the second relief. It was argued by the learned Advocate that the contract work of the appellants was stopped during enquiry launched by the Anti -- Corruption Staff regarding certain alleged malpractices in the affair of jungle in question allegedly committed by officer concerned and that after the said restrictions were lifted by then the snow season has set in and as such the appellant were handicapped in their performance and could not complete the work within the stipulated time. He also submitted that the appellants were dealt severely and illegally as no extension was given in the contract period in spite of sale of additional trees to them. It was also argued that his clients had paid the entire sale consideration and they had never been remiss and negligent in operating the contract. He next argued that the appellants had applied for extension of time of contract on 21-12-1960 and 21-1-1961 as borne out from his application Exh.P.W.3/8 and Exh.P.W.3/6 respectively and that favourable reports were made on these applications by the concerned officer and ultimately they were granted extension for six months from 1-4-1962 to 30-9-1962 as contained in Exh.P.W.2/6. However, according to him this order of grant of extension was never communicated to the appellants as the same was not received by the local Office from the Office of the Chief Conservator of Forest. In the circumstances, he prayed that the appellants may be granted decree of Rs.92,000 as the price of the trees held up by the defendants and of Rs.10,000 on account of security, the total amount of the decree would thus come to Rs.1,02,607. To support his case reliance was placed on PLD 1978 SC 242.
5. The learned AA: G. Arguing for the respondents submitted that the case as argued in this Court has not been pleaded in this manner in the original Court and that on the other hand his clients, the respondents are entitled to Rs.66,630,39 which they had claimed as set up in the written statement.
6. The points argued by the learned counsel were considered in the light of the relevant documents and evidence on the case file.
7. It is the requirement of law that contractual obligations of the appellants andrespondents are to be regulated by the express terms embodied in the agreement and particularly when no complaint whatsoever at any stage has been made by either side of lack of free consent in entering into contract. The claim of the appellants is that the respondents were bound to extend period of contract in view of the supplementary sale and because of the stoppage of his Work due to Anti-Corruption enquiry and snowfall in the jungle. Agreement executed between the parties is Exh.P.W.4/1 and clause 2 provides that the period of agreement will extend to 31-12-1960 and clause 3(b) thereof reads, "In addition to the trees mentioned above originally marked for felling trees may be marked in supplementary felling during the progress of the work and the purchasers do hereby undertake to purchase all such trees as well". Clauses 7(a) and (b) are relevant in this context which are reproduced:-
(7) That (a) the purchasers will be allowed to commence felling any time after the trees have been made over to them and all produce must be removed beyond the limits of the forest before the date here before mentioned in clause 2 for the termination of the agreement.
(b) Any trees and timber and fuel wood which may remain in the forest after the date of the termination of the agreement as here before mentioned in clause 2 shall lapse to the vendor and all the rights of the purchasers in or to the same shall be extinguished. So after reading all these clauses together the accumulative effect would be that appellants had undertaken to purchase trees and to remove all the produce from the forest before the prescribed date and that if any tree and timber etc. Remains in the forest after the date fixed in the agreement shall lapse to the vendor and all rights of the purchaser in this connection shall be extinguished. It is thus clear that no extension of contract period is provided for in the agreement for removal of additional trees or for that matter due to stoppage or suspension of work or any other eventuality. Even otherwise the state of snow season should have been in the knowledge of the contractor-plaintiff and so far the suspension of work by interference of Anti-Corruption authorities that cannot be spelled out from the application dated 31-12-1960 as well as the application dated 21-1-1961 Exhs.P.W.3/8 and 3/6 respectively submitted by the appellants for extension of time because in these applications extension has not been prayed for the said reasons. In these two applications it is nowhere stated that their work was suspended by Anti-Corruption Staff and that they should be given extension for this reason. Moreover the other evidence brought on record to show extension of time in contract is also conflicting. According to one letter dated 15-3-1962 Exh.P.W.2/6 extension for six months from 1-4-1962 to 30-9-1962 was sanctioned while according to another letter dated 11-7-1972 Exh.P.W.2/5 such extension was refused as the contractor was intimated as under:- "In view of the facts mentioned above you do not have any claim for the refund Rs.2,44,000 or grant of extension for one year for working of the balanced trees alleged to have been left in the forest. In fact the department seems to have treated you so generously by avoiding unnecessary hardship and financial loss to you, even at the time when the case was under the enquiry by the Anti- Corruption Staff. Under the circumstances you have no claim whatsoever. Moreover, there is no stipulation in the agreement that the appellants will be entitled to extension of time under certain conditions, and therefore, it will not be justifiable to ignore the clear clauses of the contract on the grounds that the terms of the contract are harsh and unconscionable. A stipulation which is not contained in the written contract cannot be applied merely for its being reasonable and the Court would not imply a term which the parties themselves have not expressed. Under clause 7 reproduced above and also under Clause 19(D) (E) the purchaser is bound to remove the timber from the forest obtained under this agreement before 31-12-1960 and if not removed within the given time', it shall become the property of Government and all rights of the purchaser to the same shall be extinguished.
8. It is also evident from various documents brought on record Exh.D.W.l/15 to 1/20 that the plaintiffs failed to deposit the instalments' money in due time. The last instalment along with sale price of the trees and sold in supplementary marking were to be paid on 1-7-1960 but the same appears to have been paid after 5-6-1961. This is a clear violation of clause 11 of the contract and. On this count too this contract was liable to be rescinded but the respondents have been generous enough to ignore this contravention. The dictum laid down in PLD 1978 SC 242 would have no application because of the distinguishing factual aspect of the precedent case than the instant case. In that case trial Court as well as the High Court concurred that extension in contract had been granted and that under clause 19(D) of the said contract extension could have been granted under certain conditions but clause 19 (G) of the contract agreement of this case substantially differ as no such extension has been envisaged under this clause.
9. In view of the above reasons we have not been pursued to differ with the conclusion reached by the trial Judge. This appeal is, therefore, dismissed but in the peculiar circumstances we make no order as to costs.