KESHRI DAL AND OIL MILL Vs. RAJASTHAN STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT & INVESTMENT CORPORATION AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE first appeal has been filed by the appellant -plaintiff under Section 96 of the CPC, challenging the judgment and decree dated 29/3/1993 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge No. 3, Jaipur City, Jaipur (hereinafter referred as 'the Trial Court') in Civil Suit No. 111/90 (532/84), whereby the Trial Court, while dismissing the suit of the appellant -plaintiff, has held that the plaintiff would be entitled to the balance amount if any remaining, after the adjustment of all the outstanding dues of the respondent -defendant Corporation, out of the auction sale consideration received by the Corporation, subject to payment of Court Fees by the plaintiff.

(2.) THE short facts, giving rise to the present appeal, are that the plaintiff had initially filed the suit seeking declaration and injunction challenging the auction proceedings conducted by the respondent Corporation on 23/6/84 in respect of the plot bearing No. F -424, situated in Vishwakarma Industrial Estate, Jaipur. The original plaint of the appellant -plaintiff was amended, and the plaintiff as per the amended plaint confined the prayer as regards the declaration to the effect that the plaintiff was not liable to pay any charges after 3/3/1981 to the respondent defendant Corporation, and that the auction proceedings held by the defendant Corporation on 23/6/84 was illegal and unauthorised. The plaintiff had also sought the permanent injunction for restraining the defendant corporation from accepting the bid of any bidder in respect of the plot in question and from proceedings further with the auction proceedings, and also seeking direction to hand over the goods/articles lying in the factory by appointing the Commissioner. It was also alleged in the plaint by the plaintiff inter -alia that the plaintiff was a registered partnership firm whose partners were Ram Chandra Goyal and Smt. Kanta Goyal. The defendant No. 1 -Corporation, on the application made by the plaintiff had allotted one plot bearing No. F -424, admeasuring 1932 square metres with the shed admeasuring 80x40' situated at Vishwakarama Industrial Estate, Jaipur on 23/1/1979. According to the plaintiff, it had made the payment of Rs. 13,000/ - towards the cost of plot and shed, and the plaintiff had to make payment of the balance amount, however due to initial financial crunches in the industry of Dal Mill, some delay had occurred in making said payment of balance amount. According to the plaintiff, the respondent Corporation on the basis of the agreement of hire purchase, which was got signed from the partner of the plaintiff firm on cyclostyle form, took illegal possession of the said plot and shed. It is also case of the plaintiff that there were plants and machineries and other equipments lying in the said factory premises of the plaintiff, which were taken away by the respondent Corporation without following the due process of law. Though the plaintiff had requested to give back the possession of the said factory, and give re -schedulement of payment of loan, the respondent Corporation without considering the said request, had put to auction the entire plot and the factory premises of the plaintiff on 23/6/1984 pursuant to the advertisement published in the local daily Rajasthan Patrika on 20/6/1984. It was further alleged that one Doongarmal Sharma of Doongarmal & Company, the defendant No. 2 had participated in the said auction and his bid was accepted for an amount of Rs. 4,45,000/ -, though the value of the said property was more than Rs. 6 lakhs. The appellant plaintiff therefore had filed the suit challenging the auction proceedings and sought declaration and injunction as stated hereinabove.

(3.) THE respondent Nos. 2 and 3 - the defendant Nos. 2 and 3 also filed the written statement by contending inter alia that they had participated in the auction proceedings, which had taken place on 23/6/1984, pursuant to the notice given in the local daily Rajasthan Patrika on 20/6/1984, and their bid having been accepted, the suit was liable to be dismissed, which was filed with ulterior motives.