AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Ram Prasanna Sharma, J
This appeal is preferred under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 against the judgment/decree dated 26-2-2002 passed by 7th
Additional District Judge, Raipur (CG) in Civil Suit No. 20-A/2001 wherein the said court dismissed the suit filed by the appellants/plaintiffs for
specific performance of contract, interest, permanent injunction and compensation.
Respondent No.1/defendant M.P. Grih Nirman Mandal, Raipur constructed shops at Katora Talab, Raipur, M.P., (Now CG) and invited tenders for
sale/allotment of the same. In pursuance of such offer made, the appellants/plaintiffs on 11-11-1995 submitted their offer for purchase of shop for
Rs.2,36,058/-. An amount of Rs.20,000/- was deposited by them. The offer was highest one with regard to shop No.1 of the said respondent. Despite
such offer, appellants/defendants were never allotted the shop No.1 at Katora Talab and made an advertisement afresh for allotment of the said shop.
An intimation in wrong name was sent to respondent No.1 and the offer was turned down that is why suit was filed before the trial court which was
dismissed after hearing the parties.
Learned counsel for the appellants submits as under.
i) The offer price was highest and it ought to have been accepted within three months, therefore, respondent No.1 was under obligation to allot the
shop in favour of the appellants.
ii) Respondent No.1 failed to intimate regarding rejection of his offer within three months, therefore, finding of the trial court in this regard is not
sustainable.
iii) The trial court has not evaluated the entire evidence in its true perspective, therefore, finding of the trial court is liable to be reversed.
He placed reliance in the matters of Arosan Enterprises Ltd. v. Union of India (UOI) and others (1999) 9 SCC 449, State of Gujrat (Commissioner of
Sales Tax, Ahmedabad) (1976) 3 SCC 500, Delhi Development Authority vs. Durga Chand Kaushish  (1973) 2 SCC 825 and State of Orissa and
others vs. Mesco Steels Limited and another (2013) 4 SCC 340.
I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the record of court below including the judgment and decree.
The first question for consideration of this court is whether respondent No.1 was under obligation to allot shop No.1 to highest bidder who are the
appellants. From the record it appears that as per conditions No. 3 and 4 of the tender ( Ex. P/1 and D/1), right was reserved in favour of respondent
No.1 to cancel the offer and they are not required to show specific reason for the same. As per document Ex.D/3, shop No.1 to 12 are same in the
quality and size. The offer of shop No.1 by the appellants was Rs.2,36,058/-. As per Ex.D/3 offer of shop No. 2 was Rs.2,62,500/-, offer of shop No.
3 was Rs.2,61,000/-, offer of shop No.4 was Rs.2,62,100/-, Â Â offer of shop No.6 was Rs. 2,50,100/-, offer of shop No.7 was Rs.2,65,500/- and
offer of shop No.9 was Rs.2,63,100/-. Looking to other higher offers of other shops which were similar to shop No.1, respondent No.1 decided that it
would be better to go for re- auction. Since the right is reserved to respondent No.1, action of re-auction cannot be said to be arbitrary or any
infringement of any terms of tender.
The second question for consideration of this court is whether the decision regarding re-auction was taken within three months as per terms of the
tender. The date of closing of offer was 11-1-1995. As per Ex. D/3 decision was taken regarding offer of the appellant on 19-1-1995 i.e., after eight
days of the period of closure of offer and as per document Ex.P/2 and P/20 information in this regard is supplied to appellants. It is not the case where
no decision was taken within three months. From the document (Ex.P/10) it is clear that the appellants have admitted that they received letter dated
20-4-1995 from respondent No.1.
Looking to the evidence that the decision in this regard is taken within eight days and the appellants had been informed accordingly, the trial court
opined that relief for allotment of shop No.1 to appellants cannot be granted to them. After re-assessing the entire evidence, this court has reason to
record a contrary finding. Argument advanced on behalf of the appellants is not sustainable and the case law cited on their behalf is clearly
distinguishable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. The appeal is liable to be dismissed.
Accordingly, while dismissing the appeal decree is passed in favour of respondent No.1 and against appellants No. 1 and 2 as under:
i) The appeal is dismissed with cost.
ii) Â Parties to bear their own costs.
iii) Pleader's fee, if certified, be calculated as per schedule or as per certificate, whichever is less.
iv) A decree be drawn up accordingly.