The court emphasized the importance of providing evidence and reasonable explanation for conduct in civil suits, and the lack of substantial question of law in the appeal.

Swatenter Kumar, J.

1. This Regular Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the learned first appellate court dated 20th May, 1982, vide which the Court accepted the appeal preferred by the Municipal Committee, Lohharu, against the judgment and decree of the learned trial court dated 11.3.1981. The challenge to the judgment and decree of the learned first appellate Court is based by the learned counsel for the appellants mainly on two grounds:-

I. That appropriate notice was not served upon the appellants in accordance with the provisions of the Haryana Municipal Act, 1973 so as to empower the authority to take any further action or to obstruct the plaintiffs from carrying on their business:

II. The costs, in relation to shops, question was wrongly calculated by the Municipal Committee and the findings of the learned trial Court in that regard ought not to have been disturbed by the learned first appellate Court and also contends that no application was submitted by the plaintiffs for agreeing to pay the balance amount.

2. Based on these two submission, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants, contends that the judgment of the learned first appellate court, thus, is perverse and not in accordance with the settled principle of law which itself amount to substantial question of law.

3. In order to examine the merits or otherwise of these contentions, it may be appropriate to refer to necessary facts, giving rise to this Regular Second Appeal.

4. Girdhari Lal and five other plaintiffs filed a suit for permanent injunction stating that they were licencees/tenant with the Municipal Committee for considerable time. However, their shops were demolished during emergency period, without awarding any compensation. Thereof the Municipal Committee had demanded certain amount from them in relation to plots No. 31, 33 to 35 and 43 to 45 of Rs. 2,050/- Rs. 950/-, Rs. 825/-, Rs. 1,825/- Rs. 1,350/-, Rs. 940/- and Rs. 1,025/- respectively.

5. According to the plaintiffs the said amount was demanded in full and final settlement as sale consideration of the property in question, which they had paid and thereafter they had become owners and not liable to pay any further amount. However, Municipal Committee co-opted the amount wrongly and issued notice dated 10th March, 1979 to the plaintiffs asking them to pay the balance amount, failing which the property would be resumed. Constrained with the circumstances, the plaintiffs filed suit before the court of competent jurisdiction.

6. The suit was contested by the Municipal Committee on the ground that the suit was not maintainable in face of provisions of Section 52 of the Haryana Municipal Act, 1973 as well as agreed price of the plot was to be paid at the rate of Rs. 75/- per square yard, which the plaintiffs had not paid and, therefore, notices were issued to the plaintiffs calling upon them to pay the balance amount. All these averments were specifically stated in the written statement. It was also stated that plaintiffs had moved an application agreeing to make the payment, however, in installment.

7. On the pleadings of the parties, following seven issues were framed:-

1. Whether the suit plots were sold to the plaintiff for the prices mentioned in para No. 4 of the plaint? OPP

2. Whether the suit plots were sold to the defendants at the reserved price at Rs. 75/- per sq. yard, as approved by D.C., Bhiwani to the plaintiff? OPD

3. Whether any notice under Section 52 of the Haryana Municipal Act, 1973 was required to be served on the defendants? OPD

4. If issue No. 3 is proved was any such notice served on the defendants? OPP

5. Whether the Civil Court has no jurisdiction as alleged in preliminary objection No. 4 of the written statement? OPD

6. Whether the suit has been under valued for purposes of court fee and jurisdiction? OPD

7. Relief.

The learned trial court answered issues No. 1 and 2 in favour of the plaintiffs and decided issue No. 3 and 4