UNION OF INDIA (UOI) Vs. RAM LAL, CONTRACTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is regular first appeal by the Union of India Defendant against Ram Lal Plaintiff from the judgment of Shri Mahesh Chander, Sub -Judge, 1st Class, Karnal, dated July 24; 1962; decreeing Plaintiff's suit for Rs. 12,658.

(2.) AN evacuee plot bearing number 22/H situate in the town of Karnal was put to public auction held on December 26, 1959 by the District Rent and Managing Officer, Karnal. The highest bid of the Plaintiff of Rs. 1.17.400 was accepted. Under the terms of auction, the Plaintiff deposited Rs. 11,740. Another term of the auction was that the acceptance of the offer of the Plaintiff to purchase the plot at that price was to be communicated to him by the District Rent and Managing Officer seven days after the date of the auction. Finding that the acceptance of the bid had not been communicated after the expiry of seven days from the date of the auction, the Plaintiff addressed several letters to both the District Rent and Managing Officer and the Assistant Regional Settlement Commissioner, Patiala, complaining against the non -communication of the acceptance of his offer. Inter alia, he addressed a letter on January 29, 1960, to the Assistant Regional Settlement Commissioner, Patiala intimating that if acceptance of his bid was not communicated to him within 15 days of the receipt of that letter, his offer by bid would stand revoked. There being failure on the part of the addressee of that letter to communicate within the period of notice about the acceptance of the bid, the Plaintiff wrote another letter to the District Rent and Managing Officer on February 18, 1960, communicating revocation of his offer. In that letter he also requested for the amount of the earnest money paid by him at the time of auction being refunded to him. Another registered letter acknowledgement due was sent by the Plaintiff to the said officer on March 9, 1960, reiterating the stand taken in the earlier letter by saying that the offer stood finally withdrawn and that the amount of earnest money be paid back to him. Finding that no reply was forthcoming from the side of the Defendant and the amount deposited was not being refunded, the Plaintiff sent on March, 23,1960, notice under Section 80, Code of Civil Procedure, requiring the Defendant to refund the amount of Rs. 11,740 or else the Plaintiff would be filing suit for recovery of that amount. It was after the service of that notice that the District Rent and Managing Officer; by his reply dated March 25, 1960 conveyed to the Plaintiff for the first time by stating that his bid for the purchase of the plot had been accepted. Reply to that letter was despatched by the Plaintiff to the District Rent and Managing Officer on April 3, 1960, asserting that in the face of the withdrawal of the offer communicated by the Plaintiff to the Defendant, subsequent intimation on behalf of the Defendant about the acceptance was of no avail to the Defendant. The Plaintiff filed suit against the Defendant on July 26, 1961, averring the above facts and claiming refund of Rs. 13,000 Rs. 11,740 as principal and Rs. 1,260 as interest on that sum at 9% from February 18, 1960 to June 7, 1961. In its written statement, the Defendant pleaded that civil Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit, that the Plaintiff had no right to revoke this offer accompanied by deposit of the earnest money made at the time of auction after it had been accepted and that the intimation sent to the Plaintiff about the acceptance of his bid was binding on him. It was further pleaded that the sum of Rs. 11,740 deposited by him stood forfeited to the Defendant. Upon the above pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:

(3.) THE only two points, which require consideration as a result of the arguments of the counsel for the parties are the following: