JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal, filed by the plaintiff, is directed against the judgment dated 13th August, 1975, of the Additional District Judge, Sirohi, dismissing the plaintiff's suit for the recovery of Rs. 11,001/-. 2. The plaintiff was granted a licence for the sale of country made liquor under a guarantee system at Ganchiwada, Sirohi, for the period from April 1, 1963 to March 31, 1964. As per the terms of the licence, the plaintiff guaranteed to draw from the Government warehouse country liquor worth Rs. 1,00,001/-. He was required to draw and sale by the end of each month l/12th quantity of the liquor of the guaranteed amount. He could make the deficiency good by the 10th of the next month. The plaintiff had deposited a sum of Rs. 10,001/- as security. In case of any shortfall in the guaranteed amount, the same could be realised from his security amount and the balance, if any was, recoverable from his other moveable and immovable property. On the expiry of the period of licence, the security amount was not refunded to the plaintiff. He, therefore, served a notice Under Section 80, CPC on the defendant and when no action was taken on it, he filed a suit for the recovery of Rs. 11,001 /- in the Court of Civil Judge, Sirohi. The suit was filed on May 2, 1967. The plaintiff's case, in brief, was that although he was willing and prepared to deposit l/12th of the guaranteed amount every month and wanted to draw liquor from the ware house of the value of the guaranteed quantity there was shortage of liquor in the ware house and, therefore, the same was not supplied to the plaintiff, as per his demands. This resulted in short supply and for this the plaintiff had to keep his shop closed for some period. In the suit the plaintiff claimed refund of the amount of Rs. 10,001/- deposited by him as security and a further sum of Rs. 1,000/- on account of loss sustained by him as a result of his shop remaining closed, total Rs. 11,001/-. 3. The State of Rajasthan in the written statement admitted that the plaintiff was granted a licence for selling country liquor for the period 1-4-1963 to 31-3-1964. It was also admitted that a sum of Rs. 1,000/- on account of loss sustained by him as a result of his shop remaining closed, total Rs. 11,001/-. 3. The State of Rajasthan in the written statement admitted that the plaintiff was granted a licence for selling country liquor for the period 1-4-1963 to 31-3-1964. It was also admitted that a sum of Rs. 10,001/- was deposited by the plaintiff as security, The defendant, however, stated that there was sufficient stock in the ware houses and non-lifting of the liquor was not the result of default on the part of the defendant but the plaintiff himself was responsible for the same, as he did not deposit the requisite monthly amount guaranteed under the licence. It was averred that the defendant was fully entitled to adjust the security towards the deficit in the guaranteed amount. It was specifically stated that the guaranteed amount to be deposited was short by Rs. 32,806.86p. and after adjusting the amount of Rs. 10,001/- towards this deficit amount the defendant--State was still entitled to recover a sum of Rs. 22,805.86p. from the plaintiff. 4. After trial, the Additional District Judge, Sirohi, by the judgment dated 13th August, 1975, dismissed the plaintiff's suit with costs. The Additional District Judge has held that although the agreement (Ex. 2) did not contain a condition that the defendant was bound to supply the variety of liquor as demanded by the licencee, yet this condition was implicit in the agreement, because unless the plaintiff was supplied the variety required by him, be could not be expected to fulfil his part of the contract. The Additional District Judge, however, held that it was the Plaintiff, who had failed to deposit sufficient sums in the Treasury or Bank and that it was wrong to suggest that the Excise Inspector did not allow him to deposit the full amount. The Additional District Judge decided against the plaintiff the issue that he had sustained a loss of Rs. 1,000/- due to the breach of the contract by the defendant. It was held that the plaintiff was not entitled to the refund of the security amount. 5. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment, the plaintiff has filed the present appeal. Shri N.M. Lodha, appearing as a counsel for the plaintiff appellant, has contended that the plaintiff could not lift the guaranteed quantity of the liquor, as adequate stock was not available in the ware house. 5. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment, the plaintiff has filed the present appeal. Shri N.M. Lodha, appearing as a counsel for the plaintiff appellant, has contended that the plaintiff could not lift the guaranteed quantity of the liquor, as adequate stock was not available in the ware house. It was on account of non-supply by the defendants that the deposit of the guaranteed amount fell short. The defendant was not, therefore, entitled to keep back the security amount and adjust it towards the deficit. Learned counsel has invited my attention to Schedule A/2 filed by the defendant and made a part of the written-statement itself. According to the learned Counsel, this makes out a complete case for the plaintiff. 6. Schedule Ex. A/2 read thus: ifjf'k"V ua0 1 ( d ) fljkasgh nqdku ua0 2 dza0la0 ekg ekgokjh jde tek ekgokjh fMQjsUl xkjUBh djkbZ x;h xkjUVh nj ds fglkc ls 'kjkc mBk (1) April 8333-32 9431-41 8924-30 590-98 (2) May 8333-32 7407-09 8112-09 - 221-23 (3) June 8333-32 8168-38 7613-10 - 720-22 (4) July 8333-32 8336-43 555-56 - 7778-04 (5) August 8333-32 - 3215-25 - 5118-07 (6) September 8333-32 1936-00 7057-10 - 1276-22 (7) October 8333-32 4284-03 2756-48 - 5576-84 (8) November 8333-32 2430-00 1114-25 - 7219-07 (9) December 8333-32 5561-02 7146-35 - 1186-97 (10) January 8333-32 8467-82 9823-09 1489-77 - (11) February 8333-32 10765-12 7719-70 - 613-62 (12) March 8334-48 3510-00 3157-15 - 5177-33 Total 10,00,01-00 7,02,97-30 6,71,94-14 2080-75 34887-61 usV deh&32806-68 gLrk{kj ftyk vkcdkjh vf/kdkjh] tkySkj ( jktLFkku )A perusal of the aforesaid Schedule reveals that in August 1963, no money was deposited by the plaintiff, but liquor worth Rs. 3,215-25 was supplied to him; in October 1963, a sum of Rs. 4,284-03 was deposited but liquor worth Rs. 2,756-48 was supplied; in November, 1963, a sum of Rs. 2430-00 was deposited but liquor worth Rs. 1114-25 was supplied; in February, 1964, a sum of Rs. 10,765-12 was deposited but liquor worth Rs. 7,719-70 was supplied to him and in March 1964, a sum of Rs. 3,510-00 was deposited but liquor worth Rs. 3,157-15 was supplied to him. The same is the position of supply to another liquor vendor Babulal whose appeal is being decided today and relates to the supply of liquor from the same ware house. The figures speak for themselves that supply by liquor was much less than the amount deposited by the plaintiff. 3,157-15 was supplied to him. The same is the position of supply to another liquor vendor Babulal whose appeal is being decided today and relates to the supply of liquor from the same ware house. The figures speak for themselves that supply by liquor was much less than the amount deposited by the plaintiff. The inference is irresistible that sufficient stock was not available at the warehouse to meet the demands of the vendors. True, the liquor to the licensee was supplied in September to make good the deficiency of August and in December to make good the deficiency of October and November. But the fact remains that the quantity of liquor supplied to the plaintiff during the months of August, October, November, February and March was much less than the demand of the plaintiff. The shortage in lifting the requisite quantity of liquor could not, therefore, be attributted to the fault of the plaintiff and he cannot be held responsible for the shortage in the guaranteed amount. The Deputy Government Advocate, however, argued that the plaintiff was required to deposit Rs. 8,332-32 every month, and as he failed to deposit the same, he should be held liable for not lifting the requisite quota of the monthly guaranteed amount. The short answer to this, as submitted, by the learned Counsel for the plaintiff, is that when liquor was not available and the defendant could not even meet the demand of the plaintiff and was not in a position to supply liquor even to the extent the amount was deposited, the plaintiff could not be expected to further block his money when it was quite obvious that liquor was not available in the ware house in sufficient quantity to meet his demands. The circumstances mentioned above amply demonstrate that there was shortage of liquor in the ware house and the defendant was not in a position to meet the demand of the licensee, even to the extent he deposited the amount. In these circumstances, the shortage in the guaranteed amount cannot be attributed to the fault of the plaintiff. Obviously, the defendant was not entitled to keep back the security deposit of the plaintiff and adjust the same towards the aforesaid deficit. The plaintiff was perfectly entitled to the refund of the security amount deposited by him. 7. The learned Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant has not pressed his claim for Rs. Obviously, the defendant was not entitled to keep back the security deposit of the plaintiff and adjust the same towards the aforesaid deficit. The plaintiff was perfectly entitled to the refund of the security amount deposited by him. 7. The learned Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant has not pressed his claim for Rs. 1,000/-on account of loss sustained as a result of the shop remaining closed. The plaintiff is also not entitled to any interest, as he did not claim the same in the notice Under Section 80, CPC. 8. The result is that the appeal is partly allowed, the judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge dated the 13th August, 1975 is set aside and the plaintiff's suit for Rs. 10,001/- is decreed against the defendant. His claim for the amount of Rs. 1,000/-is disallowed. The defendant shall pay the decretal amount to the plaintiff within a period of two months' from today, failing which, the plaintiff shall be entitled to recover interest at rate of 6% per annum from the date of this judgment till realisation. Parties shall bear their own costs, throughout.Appeal partly allowed. *******