JUDGMENT : Goutam Bhaduri, J. Heard. 1. The instant appeal is against the judgment and decree dated 31.10.2017, wherein the suit for refund of security deposit pursuant to an agreement entered into in between the appellant & respondent was dismissed. 2. (a) The case of the appellant, in short, is that the Sal seed which is produced in the forest of Chhattisgarh has been notified as Minor Forest Produce and in order to collect the Sal seeds from the forest, the respondent was appointed as an agent on behalf of the government. In the year 2009 the notice inviting tender was issued on 02.03.2009 vide Ex. P-1C. The subject issue in the suit was with respect to Udanti Forest leaving apart the sanctuary part. It is the case of the appellant that federation issued the guidelines on 13.03.2009 in the background of the fact that certain parts of the Chhattisgarh forest which produce Sal seeds are adjacent to the neighboring State i.e. Jharkhand & Odisha and the quality of Sal seed procured from those states as compared to Chhattigarh forest are inferior besides this there is huge difference in the purchase price. Therefore, there would be all possibility that the Sal seed would be imported/smuggled from Odisha and Jharkhand and direction was issued to prevent them. It is the further case of the plaintiff, the plaintiff being the highest bidder entered into purchase agreement vide Ex. P-3 for collection of Sal seed from Udanti Forest which was numbered as 34. According to such agreement, the Sal seed brought to the center after collection from the different forest, the purchaser was bound to take it, in case the quality of the seeds are questioned then it is to be referred to the Forest Officer, who will adjudicate the same. 2 (b) According to the agreement, an amount of Rs.10,45,000/- was required to be deposited as a security amount and in case of any violation after giving notice, the parties could have terminated the contract. It is the case of the plaintiff that despite the different guidelines issued by the State and the agent authorities, the smuggling of the Sal seed from the neighbouring State Odisha & Jharkhand continued and on a different occasion, therefore, federation issued the direction by Ex. It is the case of the plaintiff that despite the different guidelines issued by the State and the agent authorities, the smuggling of the Sal seed from the neighbouring State Odisha & Jharkhand continued and on a different occasion, therefore, federation issued the direction by Ex. P/4, P/5 & P/6, the plaintiff purchased the Sal seed worth Rs.11,30,168/- & 11,30,168/- and paid the price amount on 22.06.2009 and 01.07.2009 and after collection of the same when it was sent to the subsequent purchaser by the plaintiff, it got rejected for the reason that the Sal seed was not containing the solid fat content as also the other component. It was stated the Sal seed collected from Chhattisgarh are of high quality. It was further stated that the plaintiff by different letters asked for the procurement details Ex.P/7 & Ex.P/8 so as to compare as to whether the procurement was done exclusively from the forest of Chhattisgarh or it was mixed up with any imported Sal seed from Jharkhand & Odisha, but the respondent never replied. Eventually under these circumstances the contract was terminated on 03.08.2009 (Ex.P/9) and consequently the suit was filed for refund of the security deposited. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the federation itself was in know of the fact that the smuggled Sal seeds are brought from Odisha & Jharkhand were brought into the Chhattisgarh for the reason that the price at Jharkhand & Odisha were exorbitantly less than that of the Chhattisgarh, as such to get a margin of profit and different agencies were doing it, but despite issuing the direction it was not followed at ground level. He would submit that eventually the plaintiff, who procured Sal seeds from Udanti procurement center (Phad), was made a scapegoat and the quality of the Sal seed was not of the specification and eventually suffered a rejection. He would submit that in order to ascertain whether any import of the Sal seed was done from the neighbouring States, the State Government itself had set up a committee and the committee vide Ex. He would submit that in order to ascertain whether any import of the Sal seed was done from the neighbouring States, the State Government itself had set up a committee and the committee vide Ex. P/16 gave a finding that the Sal seed from the neighbouring States were being imported, therefore, it can be presumed from the facts that the Sal seed, which the plaintiff purchased from Udanti Forest were mixed with the Sal seed of neighbouring State, which contained an inferior quality which ended up in rejection by the end purchaser. He would further submit that even the witness adduced on behalf of the plaintiff was not cross-examined, therefore, as per the principle laid down in the case of Muddasani Venkata Narsaiah (Dead) through Legal representatives Versus Muddasani Sarojana { 2016 (12) SCC 288 } the statement of the witness should have been considered by the trial Court and the suit should have been decreed for refund of the amount. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent would submit that the plaintiff has miserably failed to prove that the sal seed which was procured from Udanti Forest got rejected were mixed with Sal seeds of neighbouring States. He would further submit that the purchase agreement contained a clause that while procurement of the Sal seed was made, one agent on behalf of the plaintiff should be there and therefore, the plaintiff was well aware of the fact that the Sal seed procured from Udanti were not of inferior quality but in order to take advantage of a presumption, as he collected Sal seeds from other States too, the agreement was canceled and wanted the security amount back without any supporting evidence. He would further submit that the plaintiff cannot be allowed to succeed on the weakness of the defendant. In a result, the judgment and decree passed by the learned Court below is well merited which do not call for any interference. 5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record and the evidence. 6. It is not in dispute that the Sal seed was notified under the Chhattisgarh Van Upaj (Vyapar Viniyaman) Adhiniyam, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Adhiniyam, 1969'). Meaning thereby the absolute control of procurement and storage was to be done according to the notification and the guidelines issued. 6. It is not in dispute that the Sal seed was notified under the Chhattisgarh Van Upaj (Vyapar Viniyaman) Adhiniyam, 1969 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Adhiniyam, 1969'). Meaning thereby the absolute control of procurement and storage was to be done according to the notification and the guidelines issued. The respondent State Laghu Van Upaj Sangh was the procurement agent of the Sal seeds from the forest of State of Chhattisgarh. The issue pertains to Udanti forest, which finds place in the notification and shown at schedule at Sr. No.34 in respect of procurement of Sal seed for the year 2009. Pursuant to the notice inviting tender Ex. P/1 dated 02.03.2009, the plaintiff was a successful bidder and accordingly purchase agreement Ex. P/3 was executed. Ex. P/2 dated 13.03.2009 would show that general instructions were issued by the respondent Managing Director and there are chances that the Sal seed from the neigbouring State would be infiltrated into Chhattisgarh for the reason of difference of price coupled with apprehension to suffer rejection, so such activity should be strictly monitored. 7. In these background, the purchase agreement Ex. P/3 was executed on 07.05.2009, wherein clause 4 (IX) purports that the purchaser will not refuse to accept the Sal seed brought to the center and clause 4 (X) purports that the purchaser would be bound to accept even if the production is made higher. Ex. P/3 pertains to Udanti forest which finds place in the schedule at Sr. No.34. The clause further purports that an amount of Rs.10,45000/- would be deposited as a security amount and the penalty clause 12 (I) purports that in case either party failed to abide by the conditions of agreement, the agreement may stand cancelled. 8. According to the plaintiff, as per their information they received, the Sal seeds were being imported/smuggled from Odisha & Jharkhand to Chhattisgarh and Udanti Forest was part of it. Ex. P/4 which is a letter issued by the plaintiff on 10.06.2009 to the Managing Directors of the respondent, wherein they expressed their concern that the Sal seeds are being imported from the neighbouring State, which contains high pesticides percentage and the quality of the solid fat content would be less, therefore, necessary preventive measures be taken. Pursuant to such letter, the defendant again circulated a letter on 16.06.2009 (Ex. Pursuant to such letter, the defendant again circulated a letter on 16.06.2009 (Ex. P/5), wherein all the procurement units since were directed to ensure that the Sal seeds are not smuggled into the Chhattisgarh and the strict measures were advised. Likewise it followed by another letter dated 19.06.2009 (Ex.P/6) wherein it expressed that since the Sal seeds are being procured from Odisha & Jharkhand and their quality is in question, therefore, the smuggling should be arrested. 9. In these backgrounds according to the plaintiff when the Sal seeds were sent after collection from Udanti forest to Britainia Food ingredients Ltd., the same got rejected on the ground that SFC values were significantly less as required. The plaintiff has averred that because of the import of the Sal seed from the neighbouring State it has happened as the quality was not to the standard. In order to bridge the fact the sal seeds which were procured from Udanti having been sent to the subsequent purchaser and were rejected, was required to be established. 10. There cannot be any presumption in absence of evidence that the rejection of a Sal seed lot was a part and parcel of the Sal seeds which were procured from Udanti Forest and were got mixed with Sal seed from Odisha & Jharkhand. Neither any person from the procurement center or any document in this respect was placed and proved. The plaintiff could have called a man from the procurement center along with documents to establish such fact. The NIT contains a clause that at the time of procurement of Sal seed a person from the side of the purchaser should be present as a mandatory condition. Meaning thereby, the plaintiff who was abiding by the terms of the contract, failed to produce even his witness to establish those facts that the procurement of Sal seed of Udanti Forest were substandard for the reason the seeds were got mixed with inferior Sal seeds of neibhbouring State. This fact can be easily established by procuring the phad stock register to show the collection of Sal seeds from Udanti forest and subsequent delivery of seeds to draw inference that import from neighbouring State has been made. This fact can be easily established by procuring the phad stock register to show the collection of Sal seeds from Udanti forest and subsequent delivery of seeds to draw inference that import from neighbouring State has been made. In absence of evidence, presumption cannot be drawn that the particular Sal seeds which procured from Udanti forest got mixed with substandard sal seeds imported from neighbouring State specially in the background of fact that plaintiff was procuring sal seeds from different corners of country. 11. In these circumstances, only on the ground that a general finding was arrived at at the behest of the State that certain imports have been made from the neighbouring State to mix up with the Sal seeds at Chhattisgarh would draw an inference that compulsorily the Sal seed of Udanti got mixed. The plaintiff has to stand on his own footing and he cannot be allowed to sail on the weakness of defendant. 12. In absence of any evidence, therefore, to establish the nucleus of import of Sal seed got mixed at Udanti from the neighbouring State and the same lot sent to subsequent purchaser got rejected only on inference it cannot be drawn that the chain of evidence got established in favour of plaintiff. Therefore, the rejection of the refund of the security amount without any justifiable case as per the agreement appears to be justified. 13. In a result, we do not find any illegality or perversity in the order to interfere with the same. 14. Accordingly, the appeal sans merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 15. A decree be drawn accordingly.