JUDGMENT : Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. 1. Both the appeals, titled above, are inter-connected together, as have arisen out of the same judgment dated 25.3.2008 rendered by the Civil Judge (Senior Division) Nainital, hence are being adjudicated together. 2. Having heard learned Standing Counsel on behalf of the State as also learned Counsel appearing for the respondents, I find that the controversy between the parties, which is persisting under litigation for almost five decades, is a glaring example to show how a litigant/ private respondent suffers on account of coiling red-tapism. 3. Facts of the case unfold that late Pritam Singh, being the highest bidder, entered into an Agreement with the Forest Department of the State on 3/4.9.1969 for cutting and purchasing the forest trees, that time depicted in Lot Nos.15 and 38 of the forest range, for Rs.1,30,000/- and Rs.2,11,200/- respectively. He paid the security amount of Rs.26,000/- plus for Lot No.15 whereas for Lot No.38, he made the security deposit of Rs.20,000/- plus. Mr. Pritam Singh started to work in both the Lots with the help of labourers and other supervisory staff and spent a sum of Rs.3.00 lakh in addition to the purchase price. It also seems that in both these lots, there were certain Pine Trees oozing out resin (highly inflammable substance) which was excluded from the auction and the Department had to collect this resin from those trees but somehow, due to blatant laziness of the forest officials, that substance could not be collected quickly, as a result whereof, the fire broke out in the said jungle on 16.5.1970, destroying the lion’s portion of both the lots. As per the terms of the Agreement, the matter was referred to the Arbitrator, who after having considered the pros and cons, as advanced before him by the parties, made the Award on 21.12.1990. In such award, the Department was directed either to pay the amount of compensation to the tune of Rs.1,82,496/- to the claimants or/else to provide same amount of wood which has been lost in fire. 4. The claimants were equally directed to pay to the Department the remaining amount of sale consideration worth Rs.1,20,070/-; further, the Department was directed to adjust this amount from the security deposit made by the purchaser. 5. 4. The claimants were equally directed to pay to the Department the remaining amount of sale consideration worth Rs.1,20,070/-; further, the Department was directed to adjust this amount from the security deposit made by the purchaser. 5. In addition to the above, learned Arbitrator also requested the Civil Judge concerned to pass orders for compensation as a result of pain and agony suffered by Mr. Pritam Singh, due to which he also lost his life. 6. However, it appears that perhaps, this aspect has not been gone into by the Civil Judge since no finding to this effect is indicated in the impugned judgment dated 25.3.2008; but at the same time, this Court is not inclined to take notice of this fact in view of there being no appeal filed by the claimants of the deceased. 7. The main and the only argument advanced before this Court by learned Standing Counsel on behalf of the State is that as per Condition No.16 of the Conditions of Sale, since the date of sale, the sold wood would be considered under the care and supervision of the purchaser and for any damage/loss occurred to the wood, the seller would not be accountable for the same. It has been argued that ignoring this condition, learned Arbitrator has granted the compensation, as indicated above. 8. In my opinion, all these stipulations of the Agreement are in the printed pro-forma. It further appears that the bidder Mr. Pritam Singh was constrained to sign this Agreement, as it was, without asking for any exclusion of any of the terms, as have been set out in such format of the Agreement. That apart, if the Department itself was lazy enough in making inordinate delay in collecting resin from the pine trees standing in the same Lots, then in such eventuality, it would not be justifiable to attribute its responsibility on the shoulders of the purchaser for breaking out of fire. 9. So, in view of what has been set force above, I do not find any force in these appeals. These are, accordingly, dismissed. 10. In compliance of the order dated 18.11.2008 passed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court, fifty percent of decretal amount has been deposited by the appellant/State before the Court below. Let that money be released in favour of the claimants/heirs of the deceased forthwith without asking for any security/ surety. 11. These are, accordingly, dismissed. 10. In compliance of the order dated 18.11.2008 passed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court, fifty percent of decretal amount has been deposited by the appellant/State before the Court below. Let that money be released in favour of the claimants/heirs of the deceased forthwith without asking for any security/ surety. 11. For the remaining amount, the legal heirs would be at liberty to launch the execution proceedings before the appropriate forum. 12. Let a copy of this judgment along with the LCR be sent back to the Court below for compliance, as above.