Krishan Lal Bansal vs State Of Haryana
2023 Latest Caselaw 1507 P&H

              RSA No. 555 of 1992                          -1-


IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

                              RSA No. 555 of 1992 (O&M)
                              Date of decision : 24.1.2023
                             ...

    Krishan Lal Bansal

                                             ................Appellant
                              vs.

    State of Haryana and others
                                             .................Respondents


    Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice H. S. Madaan


    Present: None for the appellant

            Mr. Karan Jindal, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana.

                              ...
    H. S. Madaan, J.

1. As per report by the Registry, notice to counsel for the

appellant has been sent, but there is not representation on behalf of

the appellant. Since the case relates to the year 1992, as such I

proceed to decide the same, with the assistance of learned State

counsel and after going through the record.

2. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that plaintiff -

Krishan Lal Bansal had brought a suit against defendants - State of

Haryana through Collector Sirsa; Director of Industries, Haryana;

General Manager, District Industries, Sirsa and Secretary Industry

Department, Haryana, Chandigarh, for recovery of Rs.16,939/- i.e.

Rs7,150/- deposited as contract money and Rs.7,150/- deposited as

security money with defendant No.3, Rs.429/- spent on purchase of

1 of 5

stamps for execution of agreement alongwith Rs.2,210/- as interest

etc. @ 12% per annum on the amount deposited and on the basis of

receipt and other documents.

3. According to the plaintiff he is a saltpetre contractor, and

he was the highest bidder for saltpeter quarries of village Mangala in

the auction for the period from 21.12.1983 to 31.10.1984. His bid

was accepted. Thereafter he deposited Rs.7,150/- as contract money

and a similar amount as security, total being Rs,14,300/-, which

amount was 50% of the total bid amount of Rs.28,600/-. As per terms

of the contract, the defendants were required to hand over the

possession of the quarries to the plaintiff but it was not done. The

plaintiff had drawn a draft of Rs.2,860/- on the State Bank of India in

favour of the Collector, Sirsa, being 10% of the bid money as

compensation amount payable to the private land owners. According

to the plaintiff since he was not allowed mining on account of

omission on part of the defendants, feeling aggrieved, he brought the

suit seeking recovery of that amount with interest and costs.

4. On notice, the defendants appeared and filed a written

statement, constating the suit, contending that on 18.5.1984, Mining

Inspector of the area accompanied by Mining Guard had visited the

quarries and found the labour of the plaintiff working there.

Therefore, the assertion of the plaintiff that land owners where the

quarries are located, did not permit him to extract saltpetre is

incorrect. According to the defendants, there was not dispute for the

settlement of compensation between the land owners and the

contractor - plaintiff, therefore, provisions of clause 18 of the

2 of 5

agreement qua settlement of compensation by the Collector was not

applicable. According to the defendants, the plaintiff had duly

extracted the saltpetre from the quarries in question and he had not

suffered any loss. The defendants relied upon the report of S.D.O.

(C ) Sirsa in that regard, stating that the plaintiff had remained in

possession of the quarries till 31.10.1984 and he is liable to pay the

balance amount of contract money amount of Rs.14,300/- alongwith

interest. The defendants prayed for dismissal of the suit.

5. Plaintiff filed replication to the written statement,

controverting the assertions made therein and reiterating the stand

taken in the plaint. From the pleadings of the parties, following

issues were framed :-

1) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the recovery of

Rs.16,939/- as alleged in the plaint? OPP

2) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for interest, if so, to

what rate? OPP

3) Whether the plaintiff is liable to pay the contract

money to the tune of Rs.14,300/- and interest amount

of Rs.1930/50 as alleged in para 18 of the written

statement ? OPD

4) Whether the defendant State failed to perform their

part of the contract for lease of the land for extracting

saltpetre in as much as the plaintiff was not admitted

to enter the land ? OPP

5) Relief.

6. Parties were afforded adequate opportunities to lead

3 of 5

evidence in support of their respective claims.

7. After hearing the arguments, vide judgment dated

7.8.1990, passed by Sub Judge Ist Class, Sirsa, suit of the plaintiff

was decreed with costs for recovery of Rs.16,939/- alongwith

interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing the suit till

realisation of the entire amount.

8. The judgment and decree passed by the trial Court were

challenged by the defendants before the District Court at Sirsa.

That appeal was assigned to Additional District Judge, Sirsa, who

vide judgment dated 9.9.1991, reversed the judgment and decree

passed by the trial Court and dismissed the suit filed by the

plaintiff.

9. Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiff has brought the regular

second appeal before this Court, notice of which was given to the

respondents, who have appeared through State counsel.

10. After going through the judgments passed by the trial

Court and that of the Ist Appellate Court, I find that the judgment

passed by the Ist Appellate Court of Additional District Judge,

Sirsa, which is under challenge in this appeal, is much more

detailed and well reasoned. All the facts and circumstances of the

case have been taken into consideration and evidence adduced by

the parties has been analysed in a very minute and proper manner,

while coming to the conclusion that either the plaintiff was creating

a hoax from the very beginning or after initial obstructions, he was

never prevented from taking out saltpetre by the land owners and

for that reason he did not bother to contact the Collector, Sirsa for

4 of 5

depositing the amount of compensation and for helping him in

taking possession of the land. Therefore, it cannot be said that it

was the defendants, who were guilty of not performing their part

of agreement. In that way, the plaintiff was not entitled to recover

any amount from the defendants. Therefore, the findings of the trial

Court on issues No. 1, 2 and 4 were reversed. Whereas the

judgment by the trial Court does not come out to be the result of

proper appraisal and appreciation of evidence and correct

interpretation of law and it was rightly upset by learned Additional

Distinct Judge, Sirsa, while disposing of the first Appeal. It may

be mentioned here that the plaintiff had filed cross objections in the

appeal before the Additional District Judge, Sirsa. Those were

found to be time barred and on account of reversal of findings of

the trial Court on the merits of the case, thus were rejected.

11. I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the judgment

passed by the Ist Appellate Court of the Additional District Judge,

Sirsa, which might have called for interference by this Court in the

regular second appeal.

12. No substantial question of law arises in the present

appeal.

13. The appeal is found to be without any merit and the same

stands dismissed accordingly.

                                               ( H.S. Madaan )
24.1.2023                                         Judge
chugh

Whether speaking / reasoned              Yes / No
Whether reportable                       Yes / No



                                5 of 5