2015 Supreme(Raj) 1342
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AT JAIPUR BENCH
Bela M.Trivedi, J.
Firm Keshri Dal and Oil Mill - Appellant
Versus
Rajasthan State Industrial Development & Investment Corporation, Jaipur & Ors. - Respondent
S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 173 of 1993.
Decided On : 10-02-2015
Advocates:
For the Appellant: N.K. Maloo, Senior Counsel.
For the Respondent No. 1:Ajeet Bhandari, Advocate.
A Civil Court can only grant relief with reference to the prayers made in the pleadings, and cannot grant any relief that is not prayed for.
Headnote:
AUCTION PROCEEDINGS - PUBLIC PREMISES (EVICTION OF UNAUTHORISED OCCUPANTS) ACT, 1964 - SECTION 6 - Interpretation and Application - Court's Power to Grant Relief - Civil Procedure Code, Order 41, Rules 22 and 33 - Applicability.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant-plaintiff, a registered partnership firm, filed a suit challenging the auction proceedings conducted by the respondent-defendant Corporation in respect of a plot and shed allotted to the plaintiff. The plaintiff sought a declaration that it was not liable to pay any charges after a certain date and that the auction proceedings were illegal. The defendant Corporation resisted the suit, contending that the plaintiff had failed to make payments and that it had taken over possession of the property under the provisions of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1964 (the said Act).
Finding of the Court:
The Trial Court dismissed the suit, holding that the plaintiff would be entitled to the balance amount, if any, after adjustment of all outstanding dues of the Corporation, subject to payment of Court fees. The appellant challenged this decision in the present appeal.
Issues: 1. Whether the auction proceedings conducted by the respondent Corporation were valid and in accordance with the provisions of the said Act. 2. Whether the plaintiff was entitled to the balance amount from the auction sale proceeds after adjustment of the Corporation's dues. 3. Whether the Trial Court erred in directing the Corporation to pay the balance amount to the plaintiff, subject to payment of Court fees.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the notice period of three days given by the Corporation for the auction was insufficient, as Section 6 of the said Act required a minimum of 14 days' notice. However, the Court found that the plaintiff had not challenged the Corporation's action in taking possession of the property under the said Act, and that the auction proceedings had already become final in favor of the successful bidders. 2. The Court also held that the plaintiff had failed to prove its case before the Trial Court, as it had not led any cogent evidence to support its allegations. 3. The Court further held that the Trial Court had exceeded its jurisdiction by directing the Corporation to pay the balance amount to the plaintiff, as the plaintiff had specifically deleted the prayer for recovery of the excess amount in its amended plaint.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Trial Court's judgment and decree were not illegal or infirm.
JUDGMENT
1. - The first appeal has been filed by the appellant-plaintiff under Section 96 of the CPC, challenging the judgment and decree dated 29/3/1993 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge No.3, Jaipur City, Jaipur (hereinafter referred as 'the Trial Court') in Civil Suit No.111/90 (532/84), whereby the Trial Court, while dismissing the suit of the appellant-plaintiff, has held that the plaintiff would be entitled to the balance amount if any remaining, after the adjustment of all the outstanding dues of the respondent-defendant Corporation, out of the auction sale consideration received by the Corporation, subject to payment of Court Fees by the plaintiff.
2. The short facts, giving rise to the present appeal, are that the plaintiff had initially filed the suit seeking declaration and injunction challenging the auction proceedings conducted by the respondent Corporation on 23/6/84 in respect of the plot bearing No.F-424, situated in Vishwakarma Industrial Estate, Jaipur. The original plaint of the appellant-plaintiff was amended, and the plaintiff as per the amended plaint confined the prayer as regards the declaration to the effect that the plaintiff was not liable to pay any charges after 3/3/1981 to the respondent defendant Corporation, and that the auction proceedings held by the defendant Corporation on 23/6/84 was illegal and unauthorised. The plaintiff had also sought the permanent injunction for restraining the defendant corporation from accepting the bid of any bidder in respect of the plot in question and from proceedings further with the auction proceedings, and also seeking direction to hand over the goods/articles lying in the factory by appointing the Commissioner. It was also alleged in the plaint by the plaintiff inter-alia that the plaintiff was a registered partnership firm whose partners were Ram Chandra Goyal and Smt. Kanta Goyal. The defendant No.1-Corporation, on the application made by the plaintiff had allotted one plot bearing No.F-424, admeasuring 1932 square metres with the shed admeasuring 80'x40' situated at Vishwakarama Industrial Estate, Jaipur on 23/1/1979. According to the plaintiff, it had made the payment of Rs. 13,000/- towards the cost of plot and shed, and the plaintiff had to make payment of the balance amount, however due to initial financial crunches in the industry of Dal Mill, some delay had occurred in making said payment of balance amount. According to the plaintiff, the respondent Corporation on the basis of the agreement of hire purchase, which was got signed from the partner of the plaintiff firm on cyclostyle form, took illegal possession of the said plot and shed. It is also case of the plaintiff that there were plants and machineries and other equipments lying in the said factory premises of the plaintiff, which were taken away by the respondent Corporation without following the due process of law. Though the plaintiff had requested to give back the possession of the said factory, and give re-schedulement of payment of loan, the respondent Corporation without considering the said request, had put to auction the entire plot and the factory premises of the plaintiff on 23/6/1984 pursuant to the advertisement published in the local daily Rajasthan Patrika on 20/6/1984. It was further alleged that one Doongarmal Sharma of Doongarmal & Company, the defendant No.2 had participated in the said auction and his bid was accepted for an amount of Rs. 4,45,000/-, though the value of the said property was more than Rs. 6 lakhs. The appellant plaintiff therefore had filed the suit challenging the auction proceedings and sought declaration and injunction as stated herein-above.
3. The said suit was resisted by the respondent No.1-defendant No.1 Corporation by filing the written statement denying the allegations made in the plaint and further contending interalia that the plaintiff had failed to make payment of the dues of the defendant since March, 1976, despite number of no
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
