Delhi District Court
Prem Prakash vs U.O.I on 12 October, 2012
IN THE COURT OF SH. AJAY PANDEY : SCJ-CUM-RC (Central): TIS
HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
Suit no. 875/06/2000
PREM PRAKASH
(Deceased through L.R.'s)
(i) Smt. Chander Kanta
W/o Late Sh. Prem Prakash
R/o R-27, Inderpuri,
New Delhi-110012
(ii) Sh. Sanjiv Kumar Chaudhary
S/o Late Sh. Prem Prakash
R/o R-27, Inderpuri,
New Delhi-110012
(iii) Smt. Babita Arora
W/o Sh. Rajiv Arora
R/o C-79, Kendriya Vihar,
Gurgaon, Haryana.
(iv) Smt. Ruby Chaudhary
W/o Sh. Vikram Singh
R/o 163, G.F., Baba Farid Puri,
New Delhi-110008.
(v) Sh. Amit Chaudhary
S/o Late Sh. Prem Prakash
R/o 1/10924, Manakpura,
Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005.
........... Plaintiffs
Suit no. 875/06/2000 Prem Prakash Vs. U.O.I 1
Versus
1.UNION OF INDIA Ministry of Defence, South Block, New Delhi.
2. THE COMMANDER WORKS ENGINEER, Accepting Officer, Head Quarters, Commander Works Engineers, Delhi, Delhi Cantt. 110010.
......... Defendants
Date of filing of the suit : 24/05/2000
Date of hearing arguments : 11/10/2012
Date of judgment : 12/10/2012
SUIT FOR DECLARATION AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION Admitted facts of the case are that:-
1. Defendants invited tender for the work bearing No. CA CWE/D-10/99-2000. Plaintiff submitted his tender for this work quoting the rate of work @ Rs. 37/-.
2. The dispute has arisen when the plaintiff intimated the defendant that the rate of Rs. 37/- mentioned by the plaintiff in his tender document by mistake instead of Rs. 370/-.
3. The plaintiff approached the defendant in this respect but the defendants informed him that prior to visit of plaintiff and intimation in this regard, the Suit no. 875/06/2000 Prem Prakash Vs. U.O.I 2 defendant has already accepted the tender of plaintiff and has dispatched the letter to this effect on 05/11/1999 at 12:45 p.m and plaintiff has approached the defendant at 02:30 p.m. on 05/11/1999 for revocating his offer in the tender.
Therefore, the defendants refused to accept the revocation of the tender because according to them the contract was already concluded. Hence, this suit praying that the decree for declaration in favour of plaintiff and against the defendant be passed that the tender bearing no. CA CWE/D-10/99-2000 submitted by the plaintiff be declared as null and void and not enforceable and the defendant be restrained from acting upon the said tender.
4. Defendants filed their Written Statement. Admitted facts have been already stated in first paragraph of this judgment. In their written statement, defendants took objection that the suit is bad for want of notice U/Sec. 80 CPC.
5. From the pleadings of the parties following issues were framed on 29/08/2003:-
ISSUES:-
1. Whether any valid contract has come into existence on the basis of facts alleged ? OPP
2. Whether the suit is not maintainable in view of section 80 CPC? OPD
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any relief of declaration and injunction as claimed ? OPP
4. Relief.
6. Both the parties produced their respective evidence.
Suit no. 875/06/2000 Prem Prakash Vs. U.O.I 37. The court has considered arguments of Mr. Sanjiv Kr. Chaudhary son of erstwhile plaintiff and Sh. Rajesh Vashisht, advocate for defendant.
Issue wise findings of the court are as under:-
ISSUE NO.2:-
Whether the suit is not maintainable in view of section 80 CPC? OPD The onus to prove this issue was upon the plaintiff. It is submitted by Sh. Chaudhary that the suit was duly registered by my learned predecessor court which means that leave to institute this suit was granted by my learned predecessor U/Sec. 80(2) of CPC. He has drawn attention of the court to the application U/Sec. 80 CPC requesting the institution of suit condoning the service of mandatory notice under Sec. 80 CPC filed by the plaintiff along with the suit It is rightly submitted by Sh. Chaudhary that once the court has instituted the suit after filing of application by the plaintiff and has proceeded further, it should be presumed that the Court has granted leave to the plaintiff for institution of suit without service of notice U/Sec. 80 CPC. It is accordingly held that the suit is not bad for want of notice U/Sec. 80 CPC.
This issue is accordingly decided in favour of plaintiff.
ISSUE NO. 1:-
Whether any valid contract has come into existence on the basis of facts alleged ? OPP It is rightly submitted by Sh. Chaudhary that as per admission of witness of defendant, the so called acceptance letter was posted to plaintiff at the Suit no. 875/06/2000 Prem Prakash Vs. U.O.I 4 wrong address. He has drawn the attention of the court to the cross examination of DW-1 wherein he has admitted that the envelope/acceptance letters Ex. DW-1/4 and Ex. PW-2/7 bear wrong address and does not bear the address of plaintiff. He categorically admitted by witness that as per record the address on that envelope is not of the plaintiff and there is wrong address on that envelope. He further admitted that acceptance letter was posted through this envelope only. This envelope Ex. DW-2/4 was actually returned back to the defendant without service upon the plaintiff.
Sh. Chaudhary has relied upon the judgment reported in case titled as Kalluram Keshawani Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1986 MP 204. In this case Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh has held that when the intimation of acceptance does not reach to the proposer it was required to be shown by the acceptor that the letter or telegram sent to the proposer was correctly addressed.
It is rightly submitted by Sh. Chaudhary that if the letter of acceptance was not correctly addressed to the proposer, it can not be said that acceptance was duly communicated by the acceptor to the proposer. Since the communication of acceptance was not completed upon 05/11/1999 by the letter allegedly posted by the defendant to the plaintiff, therefore, no concluded contract has arisen between the parties. Prior to the conclusion of contract, the plaintiff on 05/11/1999 itself, withdrew his proposed/tender. Therefore, it is held that no concluded contract was entered into between the parties in respect of tender No. CA CWE/D-10/99-2000. This issue is accordingly decided in favour of plaintiff.
ISSUE NO. 3:-
Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any relief of declaration and Suit no. 875/06/2000 Prem Prakash Vs. U.O.I 5 injunction as claimed ? OPP Necessary consequences of decision on Issue no. 1 in favour of plaintiff is that the defendant can not act upon the alleged contract arising out of the tender no. CA CWE/D-10/99-2000. This issue is accordingly also decided in favour of plaintiff.
RELIEF:
In view of the aforesaid discussion of the Court, suit of the plaintiffs is decreed and a decree for declaration is passed that no contract has arisen between the parties from the tender bearing no. CA CWE/D-10/99-2000. Decree of injunction is also passed against the defendants restraining them to act upon said tender or to seek its performance.
Decree sheet be drawn accordingly. File be consigned to record room.
(AJAY PANDEY) SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-RENT CONTROLLER (CENTRAL)/DELHI Announced in the open court Dated: 12/10/2012 Suit no. 875/06/2000 Prem Prakash Vs. U.O.I 6 Suit no. 875/06/2000 PREM PRAKASH VS. UNION OF INDIA 12/10/2012 Present: Proxy counsel for plaintiff.
None for defendant.
Vide separate judgment of even date dictated to Stenographer, suit of the plaintiffs is decreed and a decree for declaration is passed that no contract has arisen between the parties from the tender bearing no. CA CWE/D-10/99-2000. Decree of injunction is also passed against the defendants restraining them to act upon said tender or to seek its performance.
Decree sheet be drawn accordingly. File be consigned to record room.
(AJAY PANDEY) SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE-CUM-RENT CONTROLLER (CENTRAL)/DELHI Suit no. 875/06/2000 Prem Prakash Vs. U.O.I 7