SAKAL SADH Vs. COMMISSIONER OF INDUSTRIES AND ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) There is delay of 136 days in filing the accompanying second appeal. For the reasons stated in the application the delay of 136 days in filing the accompanying second appeal is condoned. The application is disposed of.

(2.) To assail the impugned judgment, learned counsel for appellant contended that trial court has rightly decreed the suit after recording the statements of the senior officers of respondent-department and the First Appellate Court has erroneously set aside the trial court judgment. Learned counsel for appellant on instructions submits that appellant is ready to pay the rate of allotment of the year 2001 because for no fault of appellant and due to lapse on the part of respondents, the allotment made was not communicated to appellant in the year 2001. It is brought to the notice of this Court that in the fresh draw of lots on 10th April, 2013, appellant has been allotted an industrial plot but at the current rates. Thus, setting aside of impugned judgment and restoration of trial court's judgment is sought in this appeal. Upon hearing and on perusal of judgment of the courts below and the material on record, I find that mere production of a recommended allotment of industrial plot does not justify decreeing of the suit on the basis of submissions made by Mr. Brij Lal, Grade II, Inspector, Office of Commissioner of Industries, under Order 10 of CPC by invoking provisions of Order 12 Rule 6 CPC because there is no clear and unequivocal admission of a proper allotment of industrial plot, as there was only a recommendation. In fact, there was no actual allotment of an industrial plot in favour of appellant/plaintiff. It is apparent from the statement of aforesaid Brij Lal that the recommendation was not forwarded to the concerned department. In such a situation, decreeing of suit on the basis of statement of an official of respondent-department recorded under Order 10 of CPC would not justify decreeing the suit by invoking the provisions of Order 12 Rule 6 CPC.

(3.) In the considered opinion of this Court, trial court had erred in doing so and the First Appellate Court has rightly set aside trial court's order of 18th October, 2011. Impugned judgment of 5th April, 2014 does not suffer from any perversity. No substantial question of law arises in this second appeal. Consequentially, this appeal and the application are dismissed with no order as to cost.