R.S.A. No. 2892 of 2007 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Regular Second Appeal No. 2892 of 2007 (O&M) Date of decision: September 02, 2008 Malkiat Singh ..Appellants v. Estate Officer, Urban Estate, Punjab and others. .. Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. Avnish Mittal, Advocate for the appellant. .. Rajesh Bindal J. C.M. No. 8048-C of 2007 For the reasons stated in the application, delay of 1107 days in re-filing the appeal is condoned. Civil Misc. stands disposed of. R.S.A. No. 2892 of 2007 The appellant-plaintiff (hereinafter described as `the appellant') is in appeal before this Court against the concurrent findings of fact recorded by both the Courts below, whereby suit filed by him for declaration and mandatory injunction was dismissed. Briefly, the facts are that the appellant, being a riot affected Sikh migrant, applied for a plot under a scheme framed by the Government to rehabilitate them by allotting shops-cum-flats. It is alleged that the plaintiff was successful for allotment of shop-cum-flat in the draw of lots held on 23.12.1986. He deposited 25% of the allotment price on 28.10.1991 and as the possession of shop-cum-flat was not delivered, the present suit came to be filed on 26.5.1994. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court with the observation that even after alleged allotment and also issuance of notice on 24.7.1991, the appellant did not deposit the amount within the stipulated period. The success in the draw of lots as such did not confer any right on the appellant for allotment of the shop-cum-flat, unless the terms and conditions thereof R.S.A. No. 2892 of 2007 [2] were fulfilled. In appeal also, the appellant failed. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the appellant was never communicated the allotment of shop-cum-flat to enable him to deposit the amount of 25% of the cost thereof. It was only vide letter dated 24.7.1991 that he was asked to deposit the amount within seven days. He went along with the amount in cash, but the same was not accepted and under the circumstances he deposited the same by a demand draft on 28.10.1991and once the conditions had been satisfied, the appellant was entitled to allotment of shop-cum-flat. He further referred to the statement of one of the respondents' witnesses to the effect that the appellant had gone in the office of the respondents with cash immediately after the receipt of notice dated 24.7.1991. However, this Court does not find any merit in the submissions made. If the appellant had applied for allotment of shop-cum-flat in 1986 in which, according to him, he was successful in the draw of lots held on 23.12.1986, he will not keep quiet for a period of about five years to wait for the letter which also is not in the form of allotment letter. Still further, even the terms of letter dated 24.7.1991 have not been complied with by the appellant in letter and spirit as the amount was admittedly paid more than 3 months thereafter by way of demand draft on 28.10.1991. Had the appellant taken the cash with him in the office within the period stipulated in letter dated 24.7.1991 and the same had not been accepted as such, nothing prevented him to send the demand draft immediately. Still further, the filing of suit merely at the fag end of the limitation period shows that it was a kind of luxury litigation which was initiated by the appellant to see if he is able to get the allotment and possession of the shop-cum-flat. Keeping in view the above facts, I do not find any merit in the present appeal. The findings recorded by the learned Courts below are plain and simple findings of fact recorded on correct appreciation of the evidence on record. No substantial question of law arises. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 2.9.2008 mk