M.M. PHILIP Vs. KERALA STATE,

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGGRIEVED by the judgment dated 16th June 2004 in A.S. No. 58 of 1996, Additional District (Adhoc) Court I, Pathanamthitta, the plaintiff -appellant filed F.A. O. No. 216 of 2004 before this Court. The FAO was disposed of by the judgment dated 9th December 2005. The Appeal was dismissed without prejudice to the right of the appellant to approach the appellate court for necessary relief's. The appellant had raised a contention that he had not made any concession before the lower appellate court for remanding the case to the trial court. After disposal of the FAO, the appellant filed I.A. No. 109 of 2006 to review the judgment of the lower appellate Court. That application was dismissed, which is under challenge in this Appeal.

(2.) THE appellant filed O.S. No. 224 of 1990 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Pathanamthitta against the State of Kerala, the Tahsildar and the Divisional Forest Officer for a decree declaring that the plaintiff is not liable to pay any amount or interest to the defendants and that all proceedings initiated by the defendants against the plaintiff under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act are illegal, void, ultra vires and without any authority. There was also a prayer for consequential injunction restraining the defendants, by a prohibitory injunction, from taking any proceedings under the Revenue Recovery Act for the recovery of any amount from the plaintiff.

(3.) THE suit was resisted by the defendants. The defendants contended, inter alia, as follows: There was no condition that the confirmation of auction should be made within seven days as alleged. The contract is not frustrated as alleged. It was specifically provided in the general conditions of auction that the Department will not be liable for any damage to the teak poles due to flood or fire. The plaintiff failed to remit the balance sale price. Therefore, re -auction became necessary. The plaintiff was informed of the same by the notice dated 18 -12 -1989. Re -auction was conducted on 2 -2 -1990 in which the successful bidder offered only Rs. 5,07,043/ - The deficit and the sales tax were to be recovered from the plaintiff for which the chalan was issued. Since the plaintiff did not pay the amount, steps were taken for realisation of the amount by resorting to revenue recovery proceedings. The plaintiff has no cause of action. The plaintiff is not entitled to any relief in the suit.