KARAN J. KUMAR Vs. GOVERNMENT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PLAINTIFF has filed a suit for damages amounting to Rs.10,49,23,859/-. His allegation is that he had been granted, by way of Nautor, certain piece of land on National Highway No.22 for setting up a petrol pump and a restaurant. The concerned authorities did not issue the no objection certificate for getting a petrol pump sanctioned and because of that petrol pump could not be established. However, the plaintiff constructed a building after obtaining permission from the concerned authorities and started a restaurant in that building in November, 1992. He had raised loan amounting to Rs.10,00,000/- from defendant No.2. When the loan was not paid because of certain difficulties faced by the plaintiff, he received a notice, under Sections 29 and 30 of the State Financial Corporations Act from defendant No.2, calling upon him to deposit the outstanding amount of Rs.13,15,141/- Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? (principal plus interest) by 21st February, 1994. Plaintiff approached the Officers of defendant No.2 with the request for extension of time by three more weeks. He personally visited the office of defendant No.2 where one Hitender Sharma met him and told him that time could not be extended and that the property would be publicized for sale with reserve price of not more than the money due. The plaintiff thereafter made last ditch effort to sell the property, so that the loan was repaid before the date mentioned in the notice. According to him, the property was worth Rs.65,00,000/- at that time and he feared that defendant No.2, in conspiracy with certain persons, was going to sell it off at a throwaway price equivalent to his loan liability. That was why he started making the efforts for the sale of the property at his own level. He entered into an agreement with two persons, named Chaman Lal Kakkar and Prem Sagar Mahajan, for the sale of the property for a sum of Rs.28,00,000/-, even though the value of the property was Rs.65,00,000/-. Those two persons discharged the liability of the plaintiff by paying the loan amount to defendant No.2. A sum of Rs.4,00,000/- was paid to the plaintiff also by those two persons. The rest of the amount remained unpaid because, in the meanwhile, the Divisional Commissioner (Revenue) and the Deputy Commissioner, Solan, initiated proceedings for the cancellation of Nautor in respect of the site on which the hotel building stood. Divisional Commissioner passed an order cancelling the Nautor. Plaintiff could not challenge that order because he met with an accident and remained confined to bed.

(2.) ON March 12, 1995, plaintiff, while sorting out the old record, happened to lay hand on a letter dated 12th March, 1994, written by the Managing Director, Dr. Parmar, of defendant No.2 ­ Corporation, per which the time for the taking over of the property, in question, had been extended upto 28th March, 1994. This fact had not been brought to the notice of the plaintiff by the functionaries of defendant No.2 inspite of his having visited the office of defendant No.2 several times between 17th February and 25th March, 1994. It is alleged that had the plaintiff been aware of the fact that the time for taking over his property had been extended upto 28th March, 1994, he would not have entered into any agreement with Chaman Lal Kakkar and Prem Sagar Mahajan for the sale of property at depressed price of Rs.28,00,000/-, who were otherwise also not eligible to purchase the property on account of their being non-agriculturist. The plaintiff has alleged that because of the concealment of this fact by the functionaries of defendant No.2 he has suffered loss of Rs.49,23,859/- being difference between the actual value of the property less the amount paid to him and the amount paid to defendant No.2 towards discharge of his liability by said Chaman Lal Kakkar and Prem Sagar Mahajan. Another sum of Rs.10,00,00,000/- has been claimed by him on account of non-liquidated charges for insulting him and putting him to irreparable loss. Cause of action is stated to have accrued on 12th March, 1995 when the plaintiff came to know about the letter dated 21st February, 1994, whereby the time for taking over of the hotel had been extended upto 28th March, 1994. It is also alleged that the cause of action again accrued on 12th May, 1998, when the plaintiff received reply to the notice under Section 80 CPC which he served upon the defendants.

(3.) PLAINTIFF has examined himself and his son, besides tendering in evidence the copies of the notice under Section 80 CPC and the reply thereto received from defendant No.2.