Ramadhar Vs. the State of M.P. and anr. - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1044690
CourtMadhya Pradesh High Court
Decided OnJun-20-2013
AppellantRamadhar
RespondentThe State of M.P. and anr.
Excerpt:
high court of madhya pradesh at jabalpur single bench present : hon'ble shri justice n. k. gupta first appeal no.232/1996 ramadhar -versus- state of madhya pradesh and another ................................................................................................. none for the appellant. shri santosh yadav, panel lawyer for the respondents. .................................................................................................... order (delivered on the 20th day of june, 2013) the appellant has preferred the appeal against the judgment and decree dated 11.1.1996 passed by the learned iind additional district judge, sidhi in civil suit no.6-b of 1993 whereby the suit filed by the appellant was dismissed with costs.2. the appellant/plaintiff has moved a civil suit before the trial court that he participated in the auction of some timber and he deposited a sum of rs.20,650/- in the office of respondent no.2. confirmation of auction was to be received from conservator of forest, rewa and after confirmation of that auction the appellant was to deposit remaining 75% amount. no notice has been received by the applicant and thereafter, it was informed that since the appellant could not deposit the remaining 75% amount of the auction, sale was 2 first appeal no.232/1996 canceled and amount which was deposited by the appellant was forfeited. the appellant/plaintiff has sought for withdrawal of that amount along with compensation etc.3. the defendants in their written statement has submitted that auction was confirmed and the plaintiff was duly informed to deposit the remaining 75% amount and he prayed for extension of time to deposit 75% amount for lot number 32. once time was extended but, thereafter he did not deposit the amount and therefore, sale was canceled and 25% amount which was deposited by the plaintiff was forfeited.4. the learned additional district judge after framing of the issues and after considering the evidence adduced by the parties dismissed the suit.5. i have heard the learned counsel for the respondents whereas, the learned counsel for the appellant did not appear before the court at the time of hearing.6. after considering the evidence adduced by ramadhar gupta (pw1) and ram sundar mishra (dw1), it is apparent that the plaintiff has applied for extension of time and therefore, he knew that auction was confirmed by the conservator of forest and he was required to deposit the remaining 75% of the amount. once time was extended but thereafter, the plaintiff did not deposit the remaining 75% amount of the auction and therefore, auction was canceled. under such circumstances, it was the fault of the plaintiff 3 first appeal no.232/1996 itself that he could not deposit the remaining amount within the extended period and therefore, according to the auction rules he could not get the 25% amount which was deposited by him back from the forest officer. he could not get any compensation for his own default. under such circumstances, the judgment and decree passed by the learned additional district judge appears to be correct. there is no basis by which any interference can be done in the judgment and decree passed by the trial court. consequently, there is no any substance in the first appeal filed by the appellant.7. on the basis of the aforesaid discussion the appeal filed by the appellant is hereby dismissed with the costs. he shall bear the costs of the opposite party also.8. copy of the judgment and appellate decree be sent to the trial court along with its record for information and compliance. (n.k.gupta) judge 20.06.2013 bina
Judgment:

HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR SINGLE BENCH PRESENT : HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE N. K. GUPTA FIRST APPEAL NO.232/1996 Ramadhar -VERSUS- State of Madhya Pradesh and another ................................................................................................. None for the appellant. Shri Santosh Yadav, Panel Lawyer for the respondents. .................................................................................................... ORDER

(Delivered on the 20th day of June, 2013) The appellant has preferred the appeal against the judgment and decree dated 11.1.1996 passed by the learned IInd Additional District Judge, Sidhi in Civil Suit No.6-B of 1993 whereby the suit filed by the appellant was dismissed with costs.

2. The appellant/plaintiff has moved a civil suit before the trial Court that he participated in the auction of some timber and he deposited a sum of Rs.20,650/- in the office of respondent no.2. Confirmation of auction was to be received from Conservator of Forest, Rewa and after confirmation of that auction the appellant was to deposit remaining 75% amount. No notice has been received by the applicant and thereafter, it was informed that since the appellant could not deposit the remaining 75% amount of the auction, sale was 2 First Appeal No.232/1996 canceled and amount which was deposited by the appellant was forfeited. The appellant/plaintiff has sought for withdrawal of that amount along with compensation etc.

3. The defendants in their written statement has submitted that auction was confirmed and the plaintiff was duly informed to deposit the remaining 75% amount and he prayed for extension of time to deposit 75% amount for lot number 32. Once time was extended but, thereafter he did not deposit the amount and therefore, sale was canceled and 25% amount which was deposited by the plaintiff was forfeited.

4. The learned Additional District Judge after framing of the issues and after considering the evidence adduced by the parties dismissed the suit.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the respondents whereas, the learned counsel for the appellant did not appear before the Court at the time of hearing.

6. After considering the evidence adduced by Ramadhar Gupta (PW1) and Ram Sundar Mishra (DW1), it is apparent that the plaintiff has applied for extension of time and therefore, he knew that auction was confirmed by the Conservator of Forest and he was required to deposit the remaining 75% of the amount. Once time was extended but thereafter, the plaintiff did not deposit the remaining 75% amount of the auction and therefore, auction was canceled. Under such circumstances, it was the fault of the plaintiff 3 First Appeal No.232/1996 itself that he could not deposit the remaining amount within the extended period and therefore, according to the auction rules he could not get the 25% amount which was deposited by him back from the Forest Officer. He could not get any compensation for his own default. Under such circumstances, the judgment and decree passed by the learned Additional District Judge appears to be correct. There is no basis by which any interference can be done in the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. Consequently, there is no any substance in the first appeal filed by the appellant.

7. On the basis of the aforesaid discussion the appeal filed by the appellant is hereby dismissed with the costs. He shall bear the costs of the opposite party also.

8. Copy of the judgment and appellate decree be sent to the trial Court along with its record for information and compliance. (N.K.Gupta) Judge 20.06.2013 bina