THE ESTATE OFFICER, UNION TERRITORY Vs. NARINDER KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) C.M. No. 6316-C of 2015

(2.) Upon notice, the defendant No. 1 filed written statement taking preliminary objections that no notice U/s. 80 CPC has been served before filing the suit, the plaintiff has not come to the court with clean hands, suit is not maintainable. It was admitted that plaintiff was granted hawker licence and was also issued provisional identity card and that a scheme was floated for allotment/transfer of built up booths in any sector on lease/hire purchase basis in Chandigarh Rules 1991. On merits, it was pleaded that the plaintiff though applied for allotment of booth, deposited a sum of Rs. 3000/- as earnest money, was issued provisional identity card but he was not found working at the time of survey conducted by the screening committee and thus, did not fulfill the requirements for allotment of booth, therefore, his case was rightly rejected by the screening committee. It was further pleaded that plaintiff had preferred an appeal against the order of rejection, which was dismissed, whereupon he filed a revision as well, which was also dismissed. Rest of the averments made in the plaint were denied being wrong and a prayer for dismissal of the suit was made.

(3.) Defendant No. 2 filed written statement, wherein it was admitted that it had accepted a sum of Rs. 3000/- from the plaintiff on behalf of the Estate Office as per their letter dated 7.2.1991. Rest of the averments were denied for want of knowledge.