HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY THROUGH ITS CHIEF ADMINISTRATOR AND ANR. Vs. BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present regular second appeal has been filed against judgment and decree dated 9.3.2011, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Hisar, vide which appeal filed by present Appellants -Defendants against judgment and decree dated 26.8.2009 passed by learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Hisar, decreeing the suit filed by Respondent -Plaintiff, was dismissed.

(2.) I have heard learned Counsel for the Appellants and have gone through the whole record carefully including both the judgments passed by learned Courts below.

(3.) ONLY point argued by learned Counsel for the Appellants is that it was for Respondent -Plaintiff to inform the Chief Administrator, HUDA, about deposit of 10% of the earnest money with Estate Officer, HUDA, Hisar. Though plea was taken by Respondent -Plaintiff that even Chief Administrator, HUDA, was informed of this fact, however, it has been rightly observed by learned Courts below that it was the duty of officials of the office of Estate Officer, HUDA, Hisar, as well to inform Appellant No. 2 with regard to timely receipt of payment in their office and for issuance of letter of intent. If there is any fault at the level of Estate Officer, HUDA, Hisar, in not informing the Chief Administrator about deposit of Rs. 16,22,570/ -from Respondent -Plaintiff on account of which letter of intent could not be issued by the Chief Administrator, HUDA, Respondent -Plaintiff cannot be held liable to pay extra price.