1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA RSA No.96 of 2025 Date of Decision : 04.09.2025 Nagar Panchayat/Nagar Parishad Jwalamukhi …… Appellant Versus Naresh Kumar Sharma ……Respondent Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge Whether approved for reporting?1 For the appellant : Mr. Adarsh K. Vashista, Advocate. For the respondent : Ms. Ragini Dogra, Advocate as Legal Aid Counsel. Bipin Chander Negi, Judge (oral) The Appellant, by filing this appeal under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, CPC), has assailed the judgment and decree dated 19.07.2023, passed by learned Additional District Judge, Dehra, District Kangra, Himachal Pradesh, in Civil Appeal RBT No. 60/G/XIII/2023/2022, whereby the judgment and decree dated 29.11.2021, passed by learned Senior Civil Judge, Court No. 1, Dehra, District Kangra, in Civil Suit No. 334/2013, was affirmed. 2. The facts giving rise to the present second appeal are that the plaintiff-respondent, as the proprietor of M/s Kobra and Company, participated in an auction convened by the defendant-appellant, Municipal Council, Jawalamukhi, for the collection of fees and charges for vehicle parking at the main bus stand and other places for the period from April 2012 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 to March 2013. The plaintiff being the highest bidder at 67,13,000/- was ₹ awarded the contract and an agreement was executed. The plaintiff’s case is that the defendant, after receiving the lease amount, failed to provide possession of a specific reserved parking lot for three wheelers and five taxis, and instead, itself collected fees from that lot totaling ₹ 58,485/-, thereby causing him financial loss. A legal notice was served upon the defendant, and upon its failure to pay, a suit was instituted for the recovery of ₹ 58,485/- along with interest and a further sum of 1,50,000/- as damages ₹ and use and occupation charges. 3. The defendant-appellant contested the suit, pleading that the reserved parking was explicitly excluded from the auction as per condition No. 15 of the bid and a specific clause No.13 in the subsequent agreement. It was asserted that the plaintiff took possession of the allotted parking areas and never raised any objection at the relevant time, and that the defendant was within its rights to collect fees from the reserved parking. 4. Upon the pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court framed the following issues for trial: 1. Whether plaintiff is entitled for recovery of ₹ 58,485/- from defendant along with interest at the rate of 10 % per annum, as prayed for? OPP 2. Whether plaintiff is entitled for recovery of ₹ 1,50,000/- as damages and use and occupation charges, as prayed for? OPP 3. Whether plaintiff has cause of action to file the suit, as alleged? OPP 4. Whether suit is not maintainable in the present form, as alleged? OPD 5. Whether plaintiff has no locus standi to file the suit, as alleged? OPD 6. Whether suit is bad for non joinder of necessary parties and mis joinder of parties, as alleged? OPD 3 7. Whether the plaintiff is estopped by his act and conduct from filing the present suit, as alleged? OPD 8. Relief. 5. After recording evidence and hearing the parties, the learned trial Court partly decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff for ₹ 58,485/-. Feeling aggrieved, the defendant filed a first appeal, inter alia, on the grounds that the judgment was based on conjectures; that the trial court failed to properly appreciate the contract which clearly excluded the reserved parking under clause 13; that the plaintiff was bound by the terms of the agreement he signed and notarized; and that the court erred in relying on past agreements which were not the subject matter of the dispute. It was also contended that the non-appearance of the Secretary or the SDM was wrongly considered fatal as the Junior Assistant produced the official record and the plaintiff had to stand on his own evidence. 6. The first appellate court, after consideration, dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment and decree of the trial court. Hence, the defendant has preferred this second appeal. 7. Heard Counsels for the parties and perused the impugned judgments. 8. The core of the dispute revolves around the interpretation of the auction terms and the subsequent agreement, Ex.PW-1/B. While condition No. 15 of the bid document, Ex. DA, and clause no. 13 of the agreement stipulate that a parking space for three-wheelers and five taxis is to be reserved, there is a conspicuous absence of any stipulation that this reservation confers upon the defendant-appellant the right to retain 4 possession of this space and collect fees from it. The agreement is unequivocal in granting the plaintiff the authority to collect parking fees from the entire auctioned lot upon payment of the full bid amount. The defendant failed to produce any evidence, whether in the form of a specific clause in the contract or any other statutory provision, demonstrating that it was empowered to exclusively collect fees from this reserved area after having accepted the entire lease consideration from the plaintiff for the parking facility. 9. The reference by the trial court to the agreement of the previous contractor Sanjay (Ext. PW1/A), is pertinent as it establishes a precedent regarding the interpretation of the contractual term "reserved space." The consistent past practice under a substantially similar agreement demonstrates that the designated parking for three-wheelers and five taxis was consistently treated as part of the leased premises from which the contractor was authorized to collect fees. This past conduct confirms that the reservation of space was intended for operational management, not for the exclusion of the contractor’s revenue-generating rights. Therefore, the defendant’s subsequent appropriation of fees from this area constitutes a unilateral deviation from established practice and a breach of the current agreement. 10. Furthermore, the appellant's own evidence, particularly the admission of DW-1 and the official statement of income and expenditure, Ex. PW-1/H, which lacked a separate accounting head for fees collected from the reserved parking, fortifies the conclusion that the entire parking lot, without any exclusion, was the subject of the auction. Consequently, the act of the 5 defendant in collecting fees of 58,485/- from a space for which the plaintiff ₹ had paid the entire bid amount was illegitimate. The plaintiff is, therefore, rightly entitled to recover this amount. The findings of the trial Court, affirmed by the first appellate Court, are based on a correct appreciation of the evidence and the contract law principles and warrant no interference in this second appeal. The suit was rightly dismissed. 11. In the aforesaid facts and attending circumstances, there arises no question of law, much-less a substantial question of law for consideration of the Court, therefore, the appeal is dismissed, being devoid of any merit. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Bipin Chander Negi) September 04, 2025 (KS/T.B.) Judge