Suit by plaintiff barred.

This appeal has been preferred against the decree and judgment in A.S.No.28 of 1993 on the file of the Court of Subordinate Judge, Villupuram. The Defendant in O.S.No.327/1996 of the file of the Court of District Munsif, Thirukoilur, is the appellant herein. The plaintiff has filed the suit for recovery of Rs.4,125/- and also for an order restraining the defendants and their men from proceeding under the Tamil Nadu Revenue Recovery Act in pursuance of the orders of the defendants dated 14. 1985 and 15. 1985.

2. The short facts in the plaint relevant for the purpose of deciding this appeal are as follows: -

2(a) The plaintiff was declared as the successful bidder who bid for Rs.4,250/- per month as rent for the Arrack shop No.34 at Sentanadu Village, Ulundurpet Taluk on 29.06.1983 for the period from 16.07.1983 to 15.07.1984 and he had paid Rs.1,000/- as earnest money and also paid Rs.2,125/- being the half months rent and also paid Rs.1000/- towards the solvency certificate amount. The auction which was held on 26. 1983 was not confirmed till 211. 1983 and the same was confirmed on 211. 1983 by an order in D.Dis.125683/83 passed by the 1st defendant, which was communicated to the plaintiff on 012. 1983. Since there was a lapse of five months the persons who are addicted to drink became regular customers of nearby arrack shops of adjecent villages viz. Marudur and Arianatham which were situated only about 2 to 3 kms from the Sentanadu Village.

2(b) The plaintiff felt and feared that he cannot expect the desired flow of customers to his shop which is necessary to sustain his shop. So he intimated the 2nd defendant in writing even some time before the receipt of the confirmation order that he was withdrawing his bid due to the change of material circumstances and that the shop may be reauctioned. The Plaintiff had not received any reply to his above petition.

2(c) The 1st defendant is bound to pass an order of Confirmation or refusal within a weeks time from the date of auction and in fact he had passed orders of confirmation to several other shops within the period and there was no valid reason whatsover to withhold the order of confirmation for 5 months. This delay had entirely changed the situation and the plaintiff was driven to run his shop in unfavourable condition which were not expected of by him at the time of his bid. The plaintiff was believing or led to believe that the order of confirmation would be a mere formality and may be passed within a weeks time of auction and that the plaintiff would be given the privilege of running this shop for the entire period of the excise year i.e., 17. 1983 to 15.07.1984. As the shop could not be run profitably and fearing of heavy loss, the plaintiff had not paid 2 ½ months rental as required by the order of confirmation.

2(d) Again the shop was put to reauction on 31. 1984 by an order of the 1st defendant in Ref. R1.A.S.34/83-84 dated 19.01.1984 and one Gurunathan son of Kesava Padayachi was declared successful bidder on a monthly rental of Rs.4,280/-. Then the 2nd defendant sent an order dated 4. 1985 demanding the plaintiff a sum of Rs.7,925/-by estimating the loss to the Government at Rs.11,050/- after deducting the sum of Rs.3,125/- paid by Plaintiff. The plaintiff sent a reply dated 5. 1985 denying and disputing his liability to the alleged loss and also demanded for the refund of Rs.4,125/-paid by him. But the 2nd defendant had not considered the valid objections of the plaintiff and rejected the same on untenable grounds and ordered to pay the amount within a week by his order in Ka.Na-Ka.No.34/83-84 dated 15. 1985 and also threatened that the amount would be recovered under the provisions of the Revenue Recovery Act if it was not complied with.

2(d) The said order is highly arbitrary and not valid. The notional loss to the Government assumed by the defendants is factually incorrect and the plaintiff is not liable to pay the amount. Moreover the act of forfeitin