Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh & Anr. v. M/s Satya Pal and sons

This is a regular second appeal directed by the defendant- appellants against the judgment dated 29.7.2008 passed by Sh. Raj Shekhar Attri, Additional District Judge, Chandigarh, vide which the appeal preferred by the defendant-appellants against the judgment dated 19.5.2005 passed by Sh. Harbhajan Dass, PCS, Civil Judge (Senior Division), Chandigarh, was dismissed. Briefly stated, M/s. Satya Pal and Sons through its Karta Satya Pal made a bid on 12.8.1998 for car parking No. 7 and 9 pertaining to parking site in front of Juneja /CMC building in front of DC office, Sector 17, Chandigarh in response to Advertisement of auction of said parking lots. The plaintiff was the successful bidder for the said lots for Rs.12.75 lacs and Rs.3.31 lacs respectively. The plaintiff was directed to start working w.e.f. 1.9.1998 vide letter dated

18.8.1998. The plaintiff deposited Rs.5.84 lacs as part payment of the bid money as per the terms of the contract. The plaintiff has accepted the contract of parking of vehicles of abovesaid lots No. 7 and 9. He had immediately made arrangements. He engaged the services of 30 employees for controlling the parking lots. In additional to it, he got prepared various sign boards which were to be affixed at the spot and incurred other expenses for the arrangement. He spent Rs.14,144/- for getting the material prepared; another amount of Rs.6,900/- was spent for painting of sign boards; he kept employees intact till the withdrawal of the parking fee and spent Rs.1,12,500/-. However, abovesaid contract was rescinded by the defendants unilaterally R.S.A. No. 3571 of 2010 -3- which has caused huge loss to the plaintiff. The amount of bid money deposited by him was not returned. Ultimately, he filed a petition before the Lok Adalat under Legal Services Authority, Chandigarh. In those proceedings, the defendant returned the principal amount of Rs.5,84 lacs. However, they did not pay the interest and damages. Hence, the suit was filed by the plaintiff for recovery of Rs.2,77,084/- which includes Rs.50,000/- as liquidation damages and other expenses borne out by him. On notice defendants appeared and filed written statement taking preliminary objections that the suit is not maintainable because statutory notice under section 396 of the Punjab Municipal Corporation Law (Extension to Chandigarh) Act, 1994, has not been served; the present suit is hit by principles of resjudicata as the matter has been decided by the Lok Adalat; the plaintiff has concealed the material facts from the Court; the defendant Corporation is not properly sued and the suit is not maintainable. On merits, it is admitted that the Corporation called tenders and plaintiff was successful bidder of the said lot in the sum of Rs.12.75 lacs and Rs.3.30 lacs. He deposited Rs.5.84 lacs as part payment of the bid money. It is also admitted that before the Lok Adalat, an amount of Rs.5.84 lacs was deposited on 9.4.1999 by a cheque and that has been received by the plaintiff on 16.4.1999. Remaining averments have been denied. Replication was not filed. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed:- R.S.A. No. 3571 of 2010 -4-

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the suit amount from the defendant on account of the expenses incurred, damages and interest etc. as a reason for withdrawal of the parking fee by the defendant as alleged in the plaint? OPP.

2. Whether the suit is bad for non-service of notice u/s 396 of the Punjab Municipal Corporation Law (Extension to Chandigarh) Act, 1994? OPD.

3. What is the fact of the proceedings before the Lok Adalat between the parties? OPD

4. Whether the defendant No.1 has not been properly sued? OPD

5. Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD

6. Relief. In order to prove his case plaintiff himself appeared as PW-1 and closed the evidence. In rebuttal, defendants examined DW-1 Yash Pal Singh SDO, M.C. Chandigarh and closed the evidence. Learned trial Court after appraisal of the evidence, partly decreed the suit of the plaintiff for recovery of Rs.66,044/- with interest @ 9% per annum from the date of filing of suit till realisation vide judgment dated 19.5.2005 passed by Sh. Harbhajan Dass, PCS, Civil Judge (Senior Division), Chandigarh. Feeling dissatisfied with the above said judgment, the defendant-appellants filed the Ist appeal and the same was heard and dismissed vide judgment dated 29.7.2008 passed by Sh. Raj Shekhar Attri, Additional District Judge, Chandigarh. R.S.A. No. 3571 of 2010 -5- Still feeling dissatisfied with the judgments dated 19.5.2005 and 29.7.2008, referred to above, the defendant-appellants have preferred the present regular second appeal. The defendant-appellants in paragraph No. 12 of the grounds of appeal have mentioned that following substantial questions of law are involved in the present appeal:- I) Whether the claims of the suit can be allowed on the basis of presumptions drawn by the Court? II)Whether the claim of salary to the employees can be admitted in the absence of the receipt of the salary or without examining the recipients in the evidence? III)Whether the alleged bills can be proved without examining the author of the bills? IV)Whether the judgment and decree of both the Courts below are beyond the evidence available on the record of the case? V)Whether the judgment and decree of both the Courts below are contradictory in itself? VI)Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned judgment and decree is liable to be set aside being without any evidence? Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that both the Courts below have misread and misinterpreted the evidence on the file. The suit of the plaintiff has been decreed without any basis. I have carefully considered the said submission, but do not find any force in that submission. Both the Courts below have minutely discussed the evidence R.S.A. No. 3571 of 2010 -6- on the file and reached to the conclusion that plaintiff is entitled to claim Rs.66,044/- alongwith interest @ 9% per annum. That being a finding of fact does not call for any interference in the regular second appeal. There is nothing on the file to show that both the Courts below have misread and misinterpreted the evidence on the file. So, in view of the above discussion, I have no hesitation in holding that no substantial question of law has arisen in the present appeal. Consequently, the appeal is without any merit and the same stands dismissed. All the miscellaneous applications also stand disposed of.

6.9.2010 ( K.C. Puri ) Judge