GHANSHYAM DAS GUPTA Vs. URBAN IMPROVEMENT TRUST

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Neither the appellant nor his Advocate is present. It appears that the Advocates have abstained themselves from work today due to the call of strike given by the Bar Association.

(2.) The present appeal has been filed by the appellant-plaintiff, challenging the judgment & decree dated 26.05.2014 passed by the Additional District Judge No.4, Kota (hereinafter referred to as "the appellate court") in Civil Regular First Appeal No.22/2014, whereby the appellate court has dismissed the appeal and confirmed the judgment & decree dated 19.02.2014 passed by the Civil Judge (Jr. division) (North), Kota (hereinafter referred to as "the trial court") in Civil Suit No.32/08.

(3.) The short facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the appellant-plaintiff had filed the suit seeking permanent injunction against the respondent-defendant in respect of the plot in question. It was alleged interalia that the respondent-defendant had invited applications for allotment of the plots at concessional rates from the people belonging to the weaker section of the society, pursuant to which the appellant-plaintiff had applied for a plot admeasuring 400 square yards. The appellant-plaintiff had also deposited Rs.300/-as per the advertisement and he was required to deposit further amount @ Rs.4 per square yard as per the terms and conditions laid down in the advertisement. According to the appellant-plaintiff, subsequently the respondent-defendant had altered the terms and conditions and increased the rate @ 10 per square yard for the allotment of the plot. The appellant-plaintiff therefore made a representation on 21.11.1975 and also deposited Rs.1310/- calculated on the basis of the rates mentioned in the advertisement, for which a receipt was issued on 28.11.1975. According to the appellant, though the said amount was deposited, the respondent neither allotted the plot nor refunded the amount deposited by the appellant. Hence, the suit was filed. The said suit was resisted by the respondent by filing the written statement, denying the allegations made in the plaint and further contending interalia that since the appellant had failed to deposit the money in compliance of the allotment letter, the possession of the plot was not delivered to the appellant. According to the respondent, because of non payment of money, the allotment letter issued in favour of the appellant had automatically stood cancelled.