Regular Second Appeal No. 2653 of 2008 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Regular Second Appeal No. 2653 of 2008 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 12.1.2009
***
The Administrator/ Chairman, Market Committee, Sirsa.
Appellant
VS.
Ladhu Ram
..Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR,
Present:-
Mr. Amit Prashar, Advocate.
***
ARVIND KUMAR, J.
After having lost concurrently before two of the Courts below,
the defendant-appellant and another have preferred the instant Regular
Second Appeal.
The plaintiff-respondent took a plot in an auction for an amount
of Rs.7 lacs, for which he, in total, deposited an amount of Rs.3,75,000/-
with the appellants, but due to financial constraints he could not deposit the
remaining bid amount. Lateron he requested for the surrender of the plot
and refund of the amount paid, as per the Policy of the appellant, which was
declined by the appellant, leading to the institution of the present suit.
The appellant-defendant contested the suit on the ground that
the policy for surrender of the plot/ shops, as initially adopted by it, was
turned by the State Government as such, the plaintiff is not entitled for the
refund of the amount.
After the contest the suit of the plaintiff-respondent was
decreed to the effect that he is entitled for refund of the amount of
Rs.3,75,000/- within a period of one month, but after making necessary
deductions of 10% of the bid amount. The findings of the learned trial court
were affirmed by the Appellate court on an appeal preferred by the
appellants. Hence this Regular Second Appeal.
I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and have
perused the paper book carefully.
Admittedly, the appellant-defendants refunded the bid amount
of certain other persons, as per their policy after surrender which provided
Regular Second Appeal No. 2653 of 2008 2
for the refund of the amount on surrender of the plot after deduction of 10%
of the bid amount. Although, it was pleaded that said policy is no more in
existence, but no rules/ instructions were produced the withdrawal of the
aforesaid policy before the Courts below. However, at this juncture,
Annexure A-1 and A-2 have been produced on record by the learned
counsel for the appellant showing that the decision regarding surrender
policy was made applicable vide resolution dated 17.5.1995 (Annexure A-
1), which was subsequently suspended by the State Government vide letter
dated 30.5.1996 (Annexure A-2. But the appellants cannot derive any
benefit therefrom firstly, for the reason that the said documents were with-
held by them before the Court of fact as also the first appellate court below,
despite of the fact that at the time of filing of the suit the same were in
existence and secondly the appellants have adopted pick and choose method
in relying upon the said documents as in Connected RSA No. 617 of 2002
dismissed on 12.11.2008, wherein the identical issue was involved, the
Board-appellant therein did not care to produce said documents. That apart
nothing was produced on record by the Board to show that in the cases of
Ramesh and Mohan, to whom, as per admission of DW.1 Krishan Lal
Sharma, the refund was ordered by the Courts, any appeal to the Superior
Court was filed or not? Therefore, documents Annexure A-1 and A-2 cannot
be taken into consideration now. Thus, the Courts below while following
the ratio of law laid down in the case of Mohan Lal Vs. State of Haryana
1981 PLR 332, wherein it has been held that forfeiture of amount shall not,
in any case, exceed 10% of the total amount, rightly concluded that the
plaintiff is entitled for the refund of the initial deposits after making
necessary deductions of 10% of the bid amount. Nothing has been shown by
learned counsel for the appellant to take a contrary view. No ground is made
out to interfere with the concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the
Courts below. No substantial question of law, which is sine qua non for
admission of appeal is made out. The appeal is wholly without merits and
the same is accordingly dismissed in limine.
(ARVIND KUMAR)
JUDGE
January 12,2009
Jiten