1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL JURISDICTION SECOND APPEAL NO.121 OF 2007 Mr.Chandrakant Gujar ...Appellant. v. Pimpri Chinchwad New Town ...Respondent. Mr.Mandar Limaye, adv. For the Appellant. CORAM : J.H. BHATIA, J. DATED : 17th September , 2009 P.C. 1 Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff/appellant. He claims that respondent/Municipal Corporation had issued an advertisement for allotment of plots in Nigadi. Plaintiff/appellant had applied for allotment of plot 470-A situated in Sector 28 and he had initially deposited an amount of Rs.1500/- and thereafter, he deposited balance amount also. According to him, entire consideration amount was deposited but in spite of repeated requests, plot was not allotted to him. He approached Lok Ayukta where the defendant/respondent had taken a plea that plot no.470A was reserved for public purposes. Lok Ayukta closed the complaint in view of the statement made by the respondent. Thereafter plaintiff filed regular civil suit no.13/96. According to him, defendant/respondent had allotted all other plots to different persons 2 except the suit plot, which is still vacant. Therefore, he sought decree for declaration that suit plot should not be allotted to anybody else. 2 Defendant/respondent contended that plaintiff had applied for allotment of plot no.470A and deposited some amount but no such plot was shown or was in existence in the map of that area. As particular plot no.470A was not available, on 13.10.78, the defendant requested the plaintiff to suggest any alternative plot, which could be allotted to him but he did not respond. On 29.3.79, defendant again issued letter to the plaintiff requesting him to suggest alternative plot but he did not reply. On 4.5.79 again a letter was addressed to him to visit the office of the Chief Executive Offficer for allotment of alternative plot but still plaintiff did not respond. 3 Trial Court held that plaintiff had failed to prove that suit plot was allotted to him and also that he was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract and the suit came to be dismissed. Therefore, the plaintiff preferred Regular Civil Appeal No.14/04. That appeal also came to be dismissed. The Appellate Court concurred with the findings of the trial Court. 4 In view of the concurrent findings of the facts and in view of the fact that plot bearing no.470A was not in existence and, therefore, 3 the defendant offered to allot any other available plot but the appellant/plaintiff did not respond and filed suit in 1996, i.e., about 18 years after said plot no.470A was allegedly not allotted to him. Taking into consideration these circumstances, I find no question of law involved in the present appeal. 5 Appeal stands dismissed. (J.H. BHATIA,J.)