Regular Second Appeal No. 3506 of 2007 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 3506 of 2007 Date of Order: 19.08.2009 Suresh KUmar ....Appellant Versus Haryana Financial Corporation & others ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA Present: Mr. Jai Vir Yadav,Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Kamal Sehgal, Advocate for respondents no.1 and 2. RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral). The appellant, challenges the judgments and decrees dated 08.08.2006 and 28.03.2007, passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bahadurgarh and the Additional District Judge, Jhajjar, dismissing his suit and his appeal. The plaintiff-appellant filed a suit for mandatory injunction to direct the respondents to confirm the sale of the suit property in his favour. It was pleaded that the Corporation invited bids for sale of 7 shops and a toilet belonging to M/s Pal Chemicals and received the highest bid of Rs.6.60 lacs. A letter was addressed by the Corporation to respondents No.3 and 4 asking them to offer a higher bid. The appellant agreed to purchase the property for Rs.6.70 lacs and, therefore forwarded his offer, to pay Rs.6.70 lacs to the Corporation. Despite this offer, the Corporation failed to communicate acceptance or rejection of the appellant's offer. In response, the respondents asserted that they had addressed a communication to the appellant, requesting him to visit their office on Regular Second Appeal No. 3506 of 2007 -2- 28.04.2003 but as he did not turn up for negotiations, his offer was rejected. On the basis of the pleadings, the trial court framed the following issues:- “1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get the sale confirmed in his favour being the highest bidder?OPP 2. If issue No.1 is proved, whether the plaintiff is entitled to injunction as prayed for?OPP 3. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit?OPD 4. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form?OPD 5. Whether the plaintiff is estopped from filing the present suit by his own conduct?OPD 6. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit?OPD 7. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties?OPD 8. Relief.” After considering the pleadings, the evidence adduced and the arguments addressed, the trial court dismissed the suit by holding that the appellant did not respond to the communication addressed by the respondent-Corporation. It was also held that as no binding contract had come into existence, the appellant had no right in law to seek confirmation of a sale in his favour. Aggrieved by the aforementioned judgment and decree, the appellant filed an appeal. Vide judgment and decree dated 28.03.2007, passed by the Additional District Judge, Jhajjar, dismissed the appeal. Counsel for the appellant submits that the Corporation sent a Regular Second Appeal No. 3506 of 2007 -3- communication requesting respondents No.3 and 4 to make an offer over and above the amount of Rs.6.60 lacs. The appellant forwarded his offer of Rs.6.70 lacs with Rs.67,000/- being 10% of the bid amount and, therefore, a concluded contract came into existence which the respondent- Corporation is required to honour. It is prayed that in view of the errors committed by the courts below, the following questions of law arise for consideration:- “1. Whether the impugned judgments/decrees are the result of the mis-reading of the documents Ex.D1 and D3? 2. Whether the deposit of Rs.67,000/- as 10% of the highest offer as earnest money being the highest offer for purchase of collateral security is an acceptance of the offer made by the corporation and as such ought to have been accepted and confirmed?” Counsel for the respondents no.1 and 2, however, submits that they addressed a letter to the appellant to come for negotiations but as he did not come forward his offer was rejected. It is submitted that no contract much less a concluded contract came into existence and, therefore, the courts below rightly dismissed the suit. It is further submitted that in the meanwhile the property has been auctioned for Rs.24.24 lacs. I have heard counsel for the parties, perused the impugned judgments, considered the questions of law and express my inability to accede to the arguments raised by counsel for the appellant. It is not denied that the appellant made an offer to pay Rs.6,70 lacs and for the said purpose, deposited a sum of Rs.67,000/- with the respondent-Corporation. This offer was, however, rejected by the Corporation, as the appellant did not come forward on 28.04.2003 for further negotiations. Regular Second Appeal No. 3506 of 2007 -4- During the pendency of this appeal and as informed by counsel for the respondents no.1 and 2, the property in dispute has been sold for a sum of Rs. 24.24 lacs. By way of the first question of law, the appellant asserts that the impugned judgments and decrees are the result of misreading of Ex.D1 and Ex.D3. A due consideration of Ex.D1 and Ex.D3 and the impugned judgments do not reveal any misreading by the courts below. As regard the second question of law, it would have to be held that the deposit of Rs.67,000/- did not lead to a concluded contract. The Corporation invited offers from respondents no.2 and 3. The appellant made an offer, which was rejected, as the appellant did not come forward for further negotiations, on 28.04.2003. An offer, in response to an invitation to offer even if accompanied by a sum of Rs.67000/-, can by no stretch of imagination be construed as a concluded contract. The appellant merely submitted an offer in response to an invitation to offer. The second question of law is, therefore, answered accordingly. In view of what has been stated hereinabove, as the impugned judgments and decrees do not suffer from any error of law, the appeal is dismissed. August 19, 2009 (RAJIVE BHALLA) nt JUDGE