AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Hon''ble Ms. Justice Bela M. Trivedi
The present appeal has been directed against the judgment and decree dated 26.7.1997 passed by the Additional District Judge No. 7, Jaipur City, Jaipur, in Civil Suit No. 452/1995 directing the present appellant (original-defendant) to pay the amount of earnest money to the respondent-plaintiff with interest @ 12% p.a.
At the out-set, it may be stated that the present appeal is pending for admission hearing since 1998 till this date mainly as the service to the respondent could not be effected. It is highly unfortunate that the appeal remained pending for 13 years at the admission stage without any progress. It further transpires that ultimately the respondent was sought to be served by substituted service by making publication in the local daily news paper and thereafter no body appears for the respondent.
The short facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the respondent plaintiff filed the suit seeking recovery of the earnest money with interest from the appellant-plaintiff,alleging interalia that the appellant had floated a tender notice, in response to which the respondent-plaintiff had submitted the tender for lifting some iron and steel material of the appellant. As a part of condition, the respondent was required to deposit the earnest money of Rs.10,000/- which the respondent had deposited. However, according to the respondent, the appellant thereafter did not offer the said material for taking delivery and subsequently the appellant forfeited the amount of earnest money. The respondent, therefore, filed a suit seeking recovery of the said earnest money with interest before the trial court. The trial curt after considering the evidence on record decreed the suit of the respondentplaintiff by the impugned judgment and decree. Being aggrieved by the said decree, the appellant defendant has preferred the present appeal.
It has been sought to be submitted by the learned counsel for the appellant that the trial court had mis-appreciated the evidence on record. According to him the appellant-defendant had already intimated the respondent by three letters to lift the goods in question, however, the same having been not lifted by the respondent, the appellant had forfeited the amount of earnest money. He also submitted that there was no condition for the payment of interest on the earnest money and hence the trial court could not have awarded the same. As stated earlier, no body appears for the respondent.
Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and the documents on record, more particularly the impugned judgment, it transpires that the suit of the respondent-plaintiff was for the recovery of earnest money of Rs. 10,000/- with interest and the trial court has decreed the same. It further transpires that the trial court, having considered the evidence adduced by the appellant, more particularly the letters which according to the appellant had written to the respondent for lifting the goods in question, had found that the said letters were not received by the respondent- plaintiff and that the appellant defendant had failed to prove that the said letters were received by the respondent. Under the circumstances the trial court had found that the action of the appellant plaintiff in forfeiting the amount of earnest money was bad and therefore, decreed the suit of the respondent. There being no infirmity or illegality much less perversity in the said judgment and order passed by the trial court, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the same, more particularly, when the amount involved is very small and about more than 13 years have already elapsed after the impugned judgment and decree. In that view of the matter, there being no substance in the present appeal, the appeal deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.