Short Note : 1. The applicant amended his written statement and pleaded that the transaction in question was forward contract within the meaning of clause (c) of section 2 of the Forward Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1952, because the payment of price and the delivery of goods were postponed beyond 11 days. He also pleaded certain notifications of the Central Government which were in force on the date of the contract in question and pleaded that the cumulative effect of these notifications was to prohibit forward contract for sale or purchase of rice or paddy without the prior consent of the Central Government. He further pleaded that if the contract was regarded as transferable specific delivery contract, it was hit by Notification No. 1 and if regarded as non-transferable specific delivery contract, it was hit by Notifications Nos. 2 and 3. As such the contract being illegal and void, the applicant was not entitled to pay any damages of the breach of contract. 2. After the preliminary issues were framed, the non-applicant examined Bhagchand (PW. 1) and Tarachand Dalal (PW. 2). The applicant examined no witness nor he himself entered into the witness-box. The Court below, after scrutiny of the evidence, negatived the plea of wagering contract and held that it was a ready delivery contract and that the Raipur Court had jurisdiction to try the suit. The findings on the preliminary issues being against the applicant, he feeling aggrieved has filed this revision. 3. Held : There is no evidence on record that the contract in question was transferable. There is evidence on record that specific goods i.e., gurmatiya rice was contracted for. There was evidence that the R. R. had to be given and payment received. In the absence of rebuttal by the applicant, the evidence disclosed that the transaction was non-transferable specific delivery contract and thus attracted exemption under section 18 (1) of the Forward Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1952. Since the contract was a non-transferable specific delivery contract, the notifications relied upon by Shri K.P. Munshi will have no application to the facts of this case. In the aforesaid circumstances, the unchallenged evidence of the non-applicant indicated that the transaction was non-transferable specific delivery contract and the prohibition contained in the Forward Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1952 will not be applicable to the facts of this case. In the aforesaid circumstances, the unchallenged evidence of the non-applicant indicated that the transaction was non-transferable specific delivery contract and the prohibition contained in the Forward Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1952 will not be applicable to the facts of this case. In view of the above, the lower Court rightly held that the transaction was neither the forward nor wagering but it was a ready delivery contract of non-transferable nature. AIR 1969 SC 9 , AIR 1962 SC 1810 and AIR 1963 SC 90 , relied on. Revision dismissed.