SA/25/2004 of U.A. FOREST DEVELOPMENT CORP. Vs SUNIL KUMAR GOEL and ORS.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL

(Court’s order whether the case is or not approved for reporting)

Description of the Case

S.A. No. 25 of 2004

Uttaranchal Forest Development corporation Aranya Bhawan.

Sunil Kumer Goel and others.

Approved for reporting.

Date of Decision: 17.03.2008.

Initial of Judge:

..................

,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

......................

HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITALSECOND APPEAL NO. 25/2004

Uttaranchal Forest Development Corporation Aranya Bhawan 73, Nehru Road, Dehradun Uttaranchal Through its Managing Director

.....Applicant

...Plaintiff-Respondent

2. Uttar Pradesh Forest Corporation B-932, Sector

...Defendant-Proforma Respondents

17.03.2008

Hon’ble Rajesh Tandon, J.

Heard Shri V.K. Bisht, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mrs. Seema Sirohi, counsel for the appellant and Shri Bhupendra Singh, counsel for the respondents.

Seema Sirohi, counsel for the appellant and Shri

2. By the present second appeal filed under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, the appellant has prayed for setting aside the judgment and decree dated 24.11.2003 passed by the Additional District Judge, Haldwani, District Nainital in civil appeal no. 3 of 2002 and judgment and decree dated 16.4.2001 passed by the Additional Civil Judge, Nainital in suit no. 73 of 1994.

3. Second appeal was admitted on the following substantial question of law: -

“Whether suit instituted by plaintiff/respondent No. 1 was time barred?”

4. Briefly stated, suit was filed by the plaintiff praying for decree for recovery of Rs. 1,04,448/- on the ground that he has purchased the Khair wood of lot no. 859, 138, 139, 724, 1376, 521, 146, 704, 206 and 18 in an auction held on 18.1.1985 which have been stocked at Lalkuwa Depot of the defendant. The plaintiff has deposited sum of Rs. 30,720/- with the defendant soon after the purchase by way of security towards the said purchase and receipt was also issued to the plaintiff. The plaintiff was informed that on receiving confirmation of the auction by the higher authorities, the bills of the purchased wood would be dispatched to the plaintiff and the plaintiff can take the

woods of the said lots after depositing the balance according to the bills. It has further been stated that when the bills or information to take the wood was not received by the plaintiff, he sent his father to enquire the matter from Lalkuwa Depot who came to know that the official of the Forest Corporation manipulated the dispatch of the bills by post. The plaintiff was told that the period for depositing the balance amount shall be computed w.e.f. 7.2.85 when the auction was confirmed. The plaintiff requested the defendant no. 2 that he was not informed about auction taken by the defendants. He visited the office of defendant no. 2 personally on 15.3.1985 and requested to deposit the bills of the auction money but the defendant no. 2 refused to deposit the money tendered by the plaintiff on the ground that the period for depositing the balance of the auction money has already been expired. However, the officers of the defendant kept on assuring the plaintiff that the matter of refund of security amount has been referred to the higher authorities but the amount was not refunded, therefore, the suit has been filed y the

plaintiff.

5. written statement was filed on behalf of the defendant nos. 1 and 2 submitting therein that according to the condition of the auction the person who has given the highest bid of the lot/lots has to deposit 10 per cent of the total sale price as Security on the binding date. The bidder has to deposit the entire amount of sale price within 24 days from the date of the dispatch of the approval. If the bidder is not able to deposit the entire amount within 24

days, then he can deposit that amount within next 7 days provided he also pays half per cent of the total sale price as late payment and if still the bidder failed then his security is forfeited according to the auction condition. The suit for recovery of money has been filed beyond the limitation period and is liable to be dismissed.

6. On pleadings of the parties, the trial court ahs framed the following issues: -

1- D;k oknh dk okn dkyckf/kr gS] tSlk fd

izfrokni= ds iSjk ua0 & 25 esa dfFkr fd;k x;k gS\

D;k oknh }kjk le;≤ ij cdk;k /kujkf’k

tek u djus ds dkj.k izfroknh dks oknh }kjk tek

dh x;h flD;ksfjVh tCt djus dk vf/kdkj Fkk] ;fn

gkW rks izHkko\

3- D;k oknh fdlh vuqrks"k dks izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gS\**

7. The plaintiff has examined himself as P.W.1 and G.C. Pant as P.W.2 The defendant has produced D.W.1 Ramesh Chandra Sanwal.

8. Towards the documentary evidence the plaintiff has produced the original bills of the deposited amount i.e paper nos. 8ga 1 to ga 3 and 9 ga 1 to ga 7, letter dated 26.11.1985 i.e. paper no. 10 ga issued top Regional Manager Van Nigam, Nainital, notice given to the plaintiff with regard to conditions of auction alongwith receipt, paper no. 69 ga i.e. reply to notice, paper no. 70 ga i.e letter

addressed to the Divisional Sales Manager by Depot Officer, Lalkuwa.

While deciding as to whether the plaintiff has right

to forfeit the security amount for non-depositing the

amount, the trial co9urt has decided the issue that the

plaintiff is entitled for release of the security amount. The

trial court has recorded the findings to the following effect:-

^^ oLrqr% oknh }kjk jftzLVªh jlhn 12x] 11x uksfVl

o 69 x uksfVl tks fd fe;kn dh vof/k ds vUnj gh

fn;s x;s gS rFkk 66 x ds uhykeh ds vUrZxr fMLiSp

ls Hksts tkus o nLrh izkIr gksus ds lanHkZ esa fnuks dh

fxurh ds lanHkZ esa gS] mDr lanHkZ es ;g lgh gS fd

oknh }kjk nLrh fcy izkIr gksus rFkk mDr fu;e & 9

ds vuqlkj gh /kujkf’k tek djus gsrq dFku fd;k x;k

gS fdUrq ;fn izfroknh }kjk mijksDr vk/kkj ij Lor%

/kujkf’k tCt eku yh x;h Fkh rks nLrh fcy mlds

firk dks tkjh ugh djuk pkfg, Fkk fdUrq izfroknh

}kjk Lor% tokch uksfVl fn;s tkus o dHkh Hkh mDr

ykV ds flD;ksfjVh tCt fd;s tkus ds lanHkZ es dFku

u djus gq, cfYd vius vf/koDrk }kjk mDr ykV ds

lanHkZ es vf/kdkfj;ks }kjk vkeus&lkeus c<+k;s tkus dk

dFku o mlds i’pkr~ 10 x }kjk izfroknh }kjk le;

c<+k;s tkus o iqu%Lohd`fr nh rks vfHkopu es mDr

frfFk ls iwoZ ykV vU; O;fDr;ksa dks lkhukUrfjr djus

ds lanHkZ es dksbZ dFku u djus o vkSj uk gh bl

lnHkZ es dksbZ ekSf[kd vFkok nLrkosth lk{; fn;s tkus

ds dkj.k izfroknh }kjk voS/k :i ls flD;ksfjfV

tCr djus dk dksbZ vf/kdkj ugh jg tkrk Fkk rFkk mijksDr

okn fcUnq oknh ds i{k es izfroknh ds fo:) fu/kkZfjr

fd;k tkrk gS\

While deciding as to whether the suit is time barred,

the trial court has recorded the finding that the defendant

kept assuring the plaintiff for refund of security money and

after denying from refund of security money in the year, the

suit was instituted on 14.2.1994. Therefore, the suit is not

barred by time. The trial court has recorded the finding as

under:

^^oLrqr% vuqNsn& 42 ifjlhe vf/kfu;e] fizfUliy

MSCVj ds fo:) 'kksfjV }kjk /kujkf”k vnk fd;s tkus

ds lanHkZ esa gS tks fd fdlh Hkh izdkj ls ykxw ugha

gksrsA okn dkj.k oknh dks izfroknh }kjk yxkrkj

vk'oklu nsus vkSj vUrr% lu~ 1993 esa bUdkjh djus

ds Ik'pkr~ fnukad 14-2-1994 dks okn lafLr fd;k

x;k gSA oknh }kjk uthj LVsV vkWQ ;w0 ih0 cuke

pUnzxqIr ,0 vkbZ vkj0 1977 ist & 28 nh x;h o

;g dFku fd;k gS fd /kkjk & 74 lafonk vf/kfu;e

ds rgr lafonk dk vuqHkkx izfroknh }kjk fd;k gS vkSj ml vk/kkj ij fdlh Hkh izdkj dh {kfr izfroknh dk ugh gksaus ij cfYd oknh ds i{k esa lafonk izHkkoh

jgrs gq, Hkh izfroknh }kjk fcy vU; dks vkacfVr

fd;s tkus ij flD;ksfjVh tCt djus djk vf/kdkj

ugh jg tkrk vrSo okn fdlh izdkj ls dkyckf/kr

ugh gS o okn fcUnq oknh ds i{k es izfroknh ds

fo:) fuLrkfjr fd;k tkrk gSA**

11. On the basis of the aforesaid, the trial court has decreed the suit of the plaintiff for recovery of security deposit to the extent of Rs. 30,720/- alongwith interest thereon at the rate of 21 per cent.

12. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and decree passed by the trial court, the Uttaranchal Van Vikas Nigam went in appeal. The appellate court has affirmed the findings recorded by the trial court and has dismissed the

appeal. The finding recorded by the appellate court is

quoted below: -

^^17 bl izdkj Lo;Z izfroknhx.k ds vuqlkj uhykeh

'krksZ es gkFk }kjk ¼nLrh½ Hkh fcy izkIr gksus dk

izko/kku gS vkSj izfroknhx.k }kjk oknh ds firk dks

fn0 21-2-1985 dks nLrh fcy fn;s x;s FksA vc

ns[kuk ;g gS fd D;k fn0 21-1-1985 ds 31 fnu ds vanj oknh }kjk uhykeh dh vo’kas"k jkf’k tek djus dk iz;kl fd;k x;k vFkok ugh\ fnukad 21-2-1985 ds ckn foYkEc'kqYd ds 24 fnu ds Hkhrj vFkZkr~ 17-3-1985 rd oknh dks volj Fkk vkSj

foyEc 'kqYd lfgr 24-3-1985 rd vo’ks"k jkf’k

tek djus dk volj FkkA okni= esa dgk x;k gS

fd tc 21-2-1985 dks oknh ds firk dks nLrh fn;s

x;s rks ml ij fcy tkjh djus dh frFkh 7-2-1985

FkhA oknh us izfroknhx.k ls vuqjks/k fd;k fd

;g frFkh lgh dj nh tk;s] ijUrq izfroknhx.k us

,slk ugha fd;kAfcy dh frfFk Hkys gh 7-2-1985

ekuh tk,] ijarq izLFkkiuk ds izfrxzg.k dh lalwpuk

21-2-1985 gh ekuh tk,xhA okni= ds iSjk 7es dgk

x;k gSfd

15-3-1985 dks oknh Lo;a izfroknh la0 2 ds dk;kZy; x;k vkSj vo’ks"k jkf’k tek djus dk vuqjks/k fd;k ijarq izfroknh la0 2 us vo’ks"k jkf’k tek ugha djkbZA okni= ds iSjk la0 9 esa dgk x;k gS fd tc oknh us izfroknhx.k dks 20-3-1985 dks bl lac/k esa uksfVl Hksts vkSj uksfVl ds mRrj esa izfroknhx.k }kjk oknh dks okrkZ ds fy, cqtk;k x;kA fyf[kr dFku esa okni= ds iSjk ua0 7ds lac/k es dgk x;k fd oknh }kjk uksfVl Hkstk tkuk Lohdkj gSA bl izdkj oknh }kjk dFku ;g fl) fd;k x;k gS fd mlds }kjk fnuakd 21-2-1985 ls 31 fnu ds vanj uhykeh dh vo”ks"k jkf’k tek djus dk iz;kl fd;k x;k blh vof/k ds vanj izfroknhx.k }kjk vos’k"k jkf’k tek ugha djk;s tkus ij izfroknhx.k dks uksfVl Hkh Hkstk x;kA blds vfrfjDr fnukad 26-12-1985 ds i= }kjk m0 iz0 ou fuxe ds eq[;ky; es aizfroknh la0 2 dks lwfpr fd;k x;k fd izca/k funsZ’kd }kjk fnukad 5-1-1986 rd ydM+hfudklh dh vuqefr nh x;h gS] vFkkZr~ bldk rkRi;Z ;g gqvk fd 5-1-1986 rd onh]

uhykeh dh vo’ks"k jkf’k tek dj ldrk Fkk] tc ou fuxe ds eq[;ky; }kjk oknh dks bl i= dh izfrfyih Hksth x;h tc tcfd oknh iqu% vo”ks"k jkf”k tek djus x;k rksizfroknh la0 2 }kjk iqu% euk dj fn;k x;kA bl lac/k esa oknh dks irk pyk fd fn0 5-1-1986 ls iwoZ esa gh izfroknhx.k dks ;g Li"V lk{; nsuk pkfg, Fkk fd oknh dh izfrHkwfr dh jkf”k fdl frfFk dks tCr dh x;h vkSj fdl frfFk dks mDr uhyke fujLr fd;k x;k vkSj fdl frfFk ij mDr ydM+h

vU; O;fDr;ksa dks uhyke dh x;hA tSlk

fdizfroknhx.k dk ekeyk gS fd 7-2-1985 ls 31 fnu ds Hkhrj oknh}kjk uhykeh dh vo’ks”k jkf”k tek udjus ij izfroknhx.k dks izfrHkwfr dh jkf’k tCr djus dk vf/kdkj FkkA rc izfroknhx.k dks izfrHkwfr dh jkf”k tCr djus dh lwpuk oknh dks nsuh pkfg, Fkh vkSj oknh dks okrkZ gsrq vkaef=r ugh djuk pkfg, Fkk vkSj ckn esa eq[;ky; }kjk ydM+h dh fudkl dh frFkh 5-1-1986 rd ugh d<+kuh pkfg, FkhA oknh dks okrkZ gsrq vkeaf=r djuk rFkk fnukad 5-1-1986 rd ydM+h fudklh gasrq vuqefr nsuk ;g fl) djrk gS fd izfrHkwfr dh jkf’k tCr ugh dh x;hA fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk bl lac/k esa tks fu"d"kZ fn;s x;s] og fof/kiw.kZ gSA**

13. On perusal of the document available on record, I do not find any infirmity with the findings recorded by the trial court as well as by the appellate court. Both the courts below have recorded the concurrent findings of fact and, as such, substantial question involved in second appeal is decided against the appellant.

14. In H.P. Pyarejan Vs. Dasappa 2006 AIR SCW 715, the Apex Court has observed as under: -

“Under Section 100 of the Code (as amended in 1976) the jurisdiction of the High Court to interfere with the judgments of the courts below is confined to hearing on substantial questions of law. Interference with findings of fact by the High Court is not warranted if it involves re-appreciation of evidence.”

15. In Commissioner Hindu Religious & Charitable Endowments v. P. Shanmugama and others (2005) 9 SCC 232, it has been held under:-

“14. In our view, High Court has no jurisdiction in the second appeal t interfere with the findings of facts recorded by the first appellate court after careful consideration of the evidence, oral and documentary, on record. It was not to the High Court to reverse the findings of fact as it has done.”

16. In view of the aforesaid, second appeal is liable to be dismissed being devoid of merit.

17. However, counsel for the appellant has submitted that the interest at the rate of 21 per cent awarded on the decreetal amount is on higher side.

18. I am in agreement with the submission made by the counsel for the appellant. The rate of interest is modified from 21 per cent, if not already paid.

19. Subject to the aforesaid modification in the interest part to the extent of 6 per cent, if not already paid.

(Rajesh Tandon, J.)