LRS OF BHAGIRATH Vs. MUNICIPAL BOARD, NOHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants are aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 13.2.2003 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Nohar, District Hanumangarh, whereby the learned Magistrate had dismissed the suit filed by the appellants' father, Bhagirath. The appellants are also aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 24.8.2009 passed by the Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No.2, Hanumangarh, Headquarter Nohar, whereby the learned Judge has dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants.

(2.) He was required to deposit the remaining th of the price within the stipulated period. However, subsequently he discovered that there is a high tension electric wire above the plot, and there are water pipeline under the plot. Therefore, he requested the Municipal Board to shift the high tension wire, and to shift the water pipeline, so that he could construct a commercial complex on the said plot. Until this work was carried out by the Municipal Board, he did not wish to deposit the rest of the auction amount. On 15.3.2000, he received a notice from the Municipal Board informing him that in case the remaining amount were not deposited by him, the bill would stand cancel. Therefore, he filed a civil suit for declaration and permanent injunction. The Municipal Board filed its written statement, and claimed that no assurance was given to the plaintiff that it would get the high tension wire shifted and the water pipeline removed. Therefore, the plaintiff could not impose these burdens upon the Municipal Board. Moreover, according to the auction conditions, the plaintiff was required to deposit the remaining amount of the bid within the stipulated period; in case he failed to do so, the Municipal Board would be justified in canceling the bid. On the basis of plaint and the written statement, the learned trial court framed six issues including one of relief.

(3.) In order to prove its case, the plaintiff examined two witnesses including himself, and submitted two documents. The Municipal Board also examined a single witness. After going through the oral and documentary evidence, vide judgment dated 13.2.2003, the learned Civil Judge dismissed the suit.