JUDGMENT : Rajiv Sharma, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 4.3.2003 rendered by the District Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala in Civil Appeal No. 85-D/XIII-2001. 2. “Key facts” necessary for the adjudication of this appeal are that appellant-plaintiff (hereafter referred to as the “plaintiff” for convenience sake) filed a suit for recovery against the respondent-defendant (hereinafter referred to as the “defendant” for convenience sake). Plaintiff-corporation invited short term tender for supply of 55,000 empty tins at Karsog depot and 6,000 empty tins at Panarsa depot. Defendant participated in the tendering process. He quoted rate of Rs. 18.95 paise per tin at Karsog depot and Rs. 19.47 paise per tin at Panarsa depot. The agreement was also executed between the parties on 25.6.1991 vide Ex.PW-2/E. The supply was to be made on or before 15.8.1991. Defendant supplied 29,472 tins at Karsog depot by 15.11.1991 and 1045 tins at Panarsa depot by 23.8.1991. Defendant was served with notices dated 8.7.1991, 9.8.1991 and 18.9.1991 whereby he was asked to supply the remaining tins immediately as per agreement. Plaintiff-corporation floated another short term tender on 9.8.1991 vide Ex.PW-2/J for supply of 40,000 tins at Karsog depot and 3,000 tins at Panarsa depot. M/s Pawan Kumar of Ner Chowk and Satish Kumar of Mehatpur quoted rates of Rs. 21.95 paise per tin. The rates were accepted by the respondent-corporation. The respondent-corporation had to purchase 25,528 tins for Karsog depot and 2802 tins for Panarsa depot at a higher rate of Rs. 3/- per tin for Karsog Depot and Rs. 2.40 paisa per tin for Panarsa depot. Plaintiff-corporation suffered a loss of Rs. 83,533/-. Hence, suit for recovery of Rs. 83,533/-. 3. Suit was contested by the defendant. Defendant had applied twice for extension of time on 19.8.1991 and 29.9.1991. However, the extension was granted to him only on 25.10.1991. The supply was to be made within a short period from 25.10.1991 to 15.11.1991. In the meantime, plaintiff-corporation floated short term tender notice on 9.8.1991 for supply of 40,000/- tins for Karsog depot and 3000 tins for Panarsa depot. The agreement for the supply of same was accepted from some other party at the rate of Rs. 21.95 paise per tin. Thus, nobody was ready and willing to supply the tins at the rate of Rs. 19/- or 20/- per tin, respectively. 4. Replication was filed by the plaintiff-corporation. The agreement for the supply of same was accepted from some other party at the rate of Rs. 21.95 paise per tin. Thus, nobody was ready and willing to supply the tins at the rate of Rs. 19/- or 20/- per tin, respectively. 4. Replication was filed by the plaintiff-corporation. The trial court framed issues on 21.2.1997. Senior Sub Judge decreed the suit on 26.2.2001. Defendant preferred an appeal before the learned District Judge, Kangra at Dharamshala. He accepted the same on 4.3.2003. Hence, the present Regular Second Appeal. It was admitted on the following substantial question of law: “Whether Ex.PW-2/E was sufficient contract in between the parties and contents of the agreement as required under section 2-E and section 10 of the Indian Contract Act were sufficient, so as to give legal right to the appellant/plaintiff to enforce condition No.9 of the agreement through process of law and to recover damages under section 73 of the Indian Contract Act.” 5. Mr. Bhupender Pathania, on the basis of substantial question of law framed, has vehemently argued that the first appellate court has not correctly construed condition No.9 of the agreement Ex.PW-2/E entered into between the parties on 25.6.1991. 6. Mr. G.R. Palsra, has supported the judgment and decree passed by the first appellate court. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records carefully. 8. PW-1 O.P. Sharma, Conservator of Forest Corporation has testified that in the year 1993 he was posted as Director (North) State Forest Corporation, Dharamshala. The suit was filed by him. According to him, defendant had agreed to supply empty tins to plaintiff-corporation at Karsog depot and Panarsa depot. Defendant failed to supply the agreed quantity of tins as per agreement entered into between the parties. Plaintiff-corporation had to purchase tins at the higher rate. Thus, plaintiff-corporation incurred loss of Rs. 83,533/-. 9. PW-2 S.C. Gupta, Conservator of forest has testified that tenders were floated vide Ex.PW-2/C for the supply of tins at Karsog and Panarsa depots. Defendant filled in tender form Ex.PW-2/D. Defendant agreed to supply 55,000 tins at Karsog depot at the rate of Rs. 18.95 paise per tin and 6,000/- tins at Panarsa depot at the rate of Rs. 19.47 paise per tin. Terms and conditions of the agreement were accepted by the defendant. Defendant filled in tender form Ex.PW-2/D. Defendant agreed to supply 55,000 tins at Karsog depot at the rate of Rs. 18.95 paise per tin and 6,000/- tins at Panarsa depot at the rate of Rs. 19.47 paise per tin. Terms and conditions of the agreement were accepted by the defendant. He had executed agreement Ex.PW-2/E. Defendant had agreed to supply 60% of the tins by 10.7.1991 and remaining 40% by 15.8.1991. Defendant supplied only 29,472 tins at Karsog depot till 1.12.1991 and 3198 tins by 29.8.1991 at Panarsa depot. Notices were served upon the defendant vide Ex.PW-2/F to Ex.PW-2/H. In the meantime, corporation was in urgent need of tins. Plaintiff-corporation has issued second short term tender notice vide Ex.PW-2/J. Pawan Kumar and Satish Kumar had agreed to supply tins at the rate of Rs. 21.95 per tin. Corporation suffered loss of Rs. 83,533/-. 10. PW-3 Sudershan Kumar, Junior Assistant has testified that he remained posted in the office of H.P.S.F.C. Director (North), Dharamshala during the year 1991-92. An agreement Ex.PW-2/E was executed by the defendant in his presence on 25.6.1991. 11. DW-1 Hem Raj has testified that vide agreement Ex.PW-2/E he had agreed to supply 55,000 tins at the rate of Rs. 18.95 paise per tin at Karsog depot and 6000 tins at the rate of Rs. 19.47 paise per tin at Panarsa depot. These were to be supplied on or before 15.8.1991. He supplied 30,000 tins to plaintiff-corporation at Karsog depot and 3200 tins at Panarsa depot. He applied for extension of time vide letters dated 19.8.1991 and 29.8.1991. Extension of time was given to him on 25.10.1991. Time was extended upto 15.11.1991. In the meantime, plaintiff-corporation invited another short term tender notice on 9.8.1991 for supply of tins. Plaintiff-corporation entered into agreement with Pawan Kumar and Satish Kumar at higher rate of Rs. 21.95 paise. In these circumstances, he could not supply the remaining tins as the tins were lifted by Pawan Kumar and Satish Kumar at higher rates. 12. Conditions No.2, 9 and 11 of the agreement Ex.PW-2/E read as under: “2. That the supplier hereby agrees to supply the purchaser (HP State Forest Corporation Limited) following once used kerosene oil/ newly replaced tops having normal size bung-hole (4-5 cm dia) at one corner with a capacity of 17 kg. 12. Conditions No.2, 9 and 11 of the agreement Ex.PW-2/E read as under: “2. That the supplier hereby agrees to supply the purchaser (HP State Forest Corporation Limited) following once used kerosene oil/ newly replaced tops having normal size bung-hole (4-5 cm dia) at one corner with a capacity of 17 kg. or more of resin empty tins, with bright placets inside and outside at the following depots on the rates given against each inclusive of all taxes in accordance with the time schedule fixed for the supply i.e. 60% of the supply by 10.7.91 and balance 40% by 15.8.91:- Sr. No. Name of Depot. required to be supplied No. of tins Rate per tin (Rs.) 1. Karsog 55,000 18.95 (Rupees Eighteen & Paise Ninety Five only) 2. Panarsa 6,000 19.47 (Rupees Nineteen and Paise Fourty seven only) However, the period of supply can be extended by the Director (North) for any period at the discretion of Director (North) in exceptional circumstances on written request from the supplier keeping in view the progress of supply. The ends of the tins should be intact and free from defects like leakages, rust, broken openings, bends etc. and the tins should be properly secured in bundles of 16 tins each with bannarial rope. 9. In the event of the failure to abide by any conditions/ terms of this agreement deed, this indenture shall be cancelled and the earnest money/ security shall be forfeited. In the event of fresh tenders have been invited due to failure on the part of the supplier to complete the supply, the excess amount so occasioned shall be recovered from the supplier through due process of law. 11. In the event of the supplier backing out/ failing to complete the supply as per schedule the earnest money/ security will be forfeited to the H.P. State Forest Corporation.” 13. What emerges from the facts enumerated hereinabove is that an agreement was entered between the parties on 25.6.1991. Defendant had agreed to supply tins by 15.8.1991. He had supplied 30,000 tins to plaintiff-corporation at Karsog depot and 3200 tins at Panarsa depot. He applied for extension of time vide letters dated 19.8.1991 and 29.8.1991. Extension of time was given to defendant on 25.10.1991 whereby he had to make the supply of the remaining tins by 15.11.1991. Defendant had agreed to supply tins by 15.8.1991. He had supplied 30,000 tins to plaintiff-corporation at Karsog depot and 3200 tins at Panarsa depot. He applied for extension of time vide letters dated 19.8.1991 and 29.8.1991. Extension of time was given to defendant on 25.10.1991 whereby he had to make the supply of the remaining tins by 15.11.1991. However, surprisingly, in the meantime, plaintiff-corporation floated short term tender notice vide Ex.PW-2/J on 9.8.1991 and entered into agreement with Pawan Kumar and Satish Kumar. They supplied the tins at higher rate of Rs. 21.95 paise per tin. According to DW-1 Hem Raj, rates quoted by defendant were 18.95 paise per tin at Karsog depot and Rs. 19.47 paise per tin at Panarsa depot. However, plaintiff-corporation agreed to buy tins at higher rate of Rs. 21.95 per tin from Pawan Kumar and Satish Kumar. In these circumstances, he could not supply the tins as the same were not available in the market. It is evident from the plain language of condition No.9 of the agreement that in the event of the failure to abide by any conditions/terms of the agreement deed, the indenture was to be cancelled and the earnest money was to be forfeited and in the event of fresh tenders floated due to failure on the part of the supplier to complete the supply, the excess amount so occasioned was to be recovered from the supplier through due process of law. According to condition No.11 of the agreement, in the event of supplier backing out to complete the supply as per schedule, the earnest money was to be forfeited to the plaintiff-corporation. However, as per condition No.2, the period of supply could be extended by the Director (North) for any period at his discretion in exceptional circumstances on written request from the supplier keeping in view the progress of supply. 14. In the instant case, defendant has made supply of 30,000 tins to plaintiff-corporation at Karsog depot and 3200 tins at Panarsa depot by 15.8.1991. Defendant had sent letters to plaintiff-corporation on 19.8.1991 and 29.8.1991 for extension of time. Time, as noticed above, was extended upto 15.11.1991. Plaintiff-corporation should have waited for the supply to be made by the defendant by 15.11.1991 on the basis of extension given to him on 25.10.1991. The agreement entered into between the parties has been cancelled only on 21.2.1992. Defendant had sent letters to plaintiff-corporation on 19.8.1991 and 29.8.1991 for extension of time. Time, as noticed above, was extended upto 15.11.1991. Plaintiff-corporation should have waited for the supply to be made by the defendant by 15.11.1991 on the basis of extension given to him on 25.10.1991. The agreement entered into between the parties has been cancelled only on 21.2.1992. There was no necessity for the corporation to float short term tender notice since the extension was sought for by the defendant on 19.8.1991 and 29.9.1991. The short term tender notice floated on 19.8.1991 vide Ex.PW-2/J was also for supply of tins to Gowali, Pandoh, Shahpur, Nurpur and Bilaspur depots. The time had been extended strictly as per condition No.2 of the agreement Ex.PW-2/E vide permission Ex.PW-1/B. Defendant, in these circumstances, has not deliberately, voluntarily and intentionally infringed or breached the terms of agreement dated 25.6.1991. Act of plaintiff-corporation has made the availability of tins scare. In these circumstances, defendant has failed to supply the remaining tins. Conditions No.2, 9 and 11 are to be read harmoniously of the agreement dated 25.6.1991 (Ex.PW-2/E). 15. Learned first appellate court has correctly appreciated the terms and conditions of the agreement. Substantial question of law is answered accordingly. 16. In view of the analysis and discussion made hereinabove, there is no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed. Pending application (s), if any, also stands disposed of. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.