PUNJAB STATE Vs. THAKUR MOHINDER SINGH AMAR NATH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this judgment, I propose to decide two connected Regular First Appeal bearing Nos. 742/79 and 1369 of 1979 as both these appeals have been filed against the same judgment and decree passed by the learned Senior Sub Judge, Jalandhar. In the judgment and decree dated 5. 1. 1979 impugned in both the appeals, the Senior Sub Judge decreed the suit for recovery of Rs. 1,50,500.00 in favour of plaintiff - M/s Thakur Mohinder Singh Amar Nath against the State of Punjab but the claim of the plaintiff with regard to other matters i. e. damage that the plaintiff had suffered for which it had separately claimed about Rs. 45000.00, was declined. Obviously, whereas, the State of Punjab had filed RFA No. 742/79 against the judgment and decree passed by the Senior Sub Judge Jalandhar for the recovery of Rs. 1,50,500.00, the plaintiff being aggrieved by the part of the judgment for which his claim for damages has been declined, has filed RFA No. 1369 of 1979.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case which have been incorporated in the plaint reveal that plaintiff is a fish contractor and doing business of fishing contractors for the last several years. The Collector Jalandhar on 3. 5. 1977 auctioned the notified waters of Fishery Districts of Kapurthala and Amritsar from 1. 9. 1977 to 31. 8. 1978. The plaintiff gave highest bid of Rs. 4,50,500.00 and as per auction conditions paid a sum of Rs. 1,50,500.00 at the spot against receipt No. 972724 dated 5. 9. 1977. Despite the fact that the he was the highest bidder and paid a sum of Rs. 1,50,500.00 the defendant state of Punjab did not deliver the possession of the waters from which fish was to be caught and also failed to issue licence for catching fish in the notified waters of Fishery Districts of Kapurthala and Amritsar. The plaintiff made several representations requesting the defendant to issue licence for catching the fish, but the defendant kept silent over the issue. As season for catching the fish was passing, the plaintiff served notice calling upon the defendants to deliver possession of waters of Fishery of the Districts mentioned above, On 14. 10. 1977, the plaintiff vide telegram cancelled the agreement and demanded the refund of the amount deposited alongwith interest and losses suffered from the defendant. The plaintiff stated that he had suffered a loss of Rs. 3000.00 per day and on that count he claimed Rs. 44500.00 by, way of damages and losses. He filed a suit for the recovery of Rs. 1,95,000.00 after issuing notice Under Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code.

(3.) AFTER the resultant trial, issue Nos. 1 to 3 were determined against the defendant. Issue No. 5 was determined against the plaintiff. The state of Punjab has challenged the findings on issue No. 4 alone before this Court. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of this case. This Court is of the view that both the appeals have no merit and deserve to be dismissed. Assailing the findings on issue No. 4, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab states that the plaintiff was not entitled to refund l/3rd of the auction amount paid by him at the fall of hammer as it was necessary to deposit 2% cash security at the same time which was pre-requisite for the issuance of licence and mere acceptance of the bid tentatively subject to the approval of the Government conferred no right on the plaintiff as the bid was less than the average of last three years revenue. There is no substance in the submission made by the learned Deputy Advocate General, Punjab.