[2025:RJ-JP:21094] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Second Appeal No. 480/2024 Damodar Prasad S/o Hanuman Prasad, R/o Lakheri, Tehsil Indergarh, District Bundi (Raj.) ----Appellant Versus 1. Nagarpalika Mandal, Lakheri Through Executive Officer, Nagarpalika Mandal, Lakheri, Tehsil Indargarh, District Bundi (Raj.) 2. Nagarpalika Mandal, Lakheri Through Chairman, Nagarpalika Mandal, Lakheri, Tehsil Indargarh, District Bundi (Raj.) ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Ashish Sharma Upadhyay with Mr. Anirudh Gupta For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANEESH SHARMA Order 19/05/2025 1. Plaintiff-appellant has filed the present civil second appeal challenging the judgment and decree dated 12.09.2024 passed by the Additional District Judge No.2, Bundi in Civil Regular Appeal No.19/2015 CIS No.49/2015 titled Damodar Prasad Vs. Nagarpalika Mandal and Anr., upholding the judgment and decree dated 11.08.2015 passed by the Civil Judge, Lakheri, District Bundi in civil suit No.14/2011 CIS No. 15/2014 whereby suit for permanent and mandatory injunction has been dismissed. 2. That the brief facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the defendant-respondents published an auction notice in respect of shop No.2 at bus stand, Lakheri under IDSMT scheme, wherein the plaintiff-appellant participated and the auction was finalized in favour of the plaintiff-appellant as the plaintiff-appellant was the [2025:RJ-JP:21094] (2 of 8) [CSA-480/2024] highest bidder. Accordingly, the plaintiff-appellant has deposited 1/4th of the bid amount amount i.e. Rs.87,750/- vide receipt No.50 apart from the earnest money of Rs.10,000/- deposited vide receipt No.44. It was further pleaded that the possession of the shop in question was also handed over to the plaintiff-appellant, thereafter, the plaintiff-appellant was ready and willing to deposit the remaining 3/4th amount, but the same was not accepted by the defendant-respondents and all of a sudden without cancelling the auction the defendant-respondents had issued a fresh auction notice dated 14.12.2011 and 15.12.2011. Therefore, the plaintiff- appellant filed a suit for injunction that the defendant-respondents may be restrained from re-auctioning the suit shop and the plaintiff-appellant may not be dispossessed from the shop-in- question and prayed accordingly. 3. That after service of summons of suit the defendant- respondents filed its written-statement and denied the averments made in the suit. It was further pleaded that before the confirmation of the bid as per the decision of the Chairman of the IDSMT scheme i.e. the Collector, Bundi, the auction proceeding was cancelled vide order dated 25.08.2011 and the said decision was duly communicated to the plaintiff-appellant and it was also informed to the plaintiff-appellant that he can take refund of 1/4th of the bid amount deposited by him from the office of the defendant-respondents. It was further pleaded that possession of the shop was never handed over to the plaintiff-appellant, since the auction proceeding was never concluded/finalized, rather stood cancelled vide order dated 25.08.2011, therefore, the [2025:RJ-JP:21094] (3 of 8) [CSA-480/2024] defendant-respondents have rightly issued the second auction notice dated 14.12.2011 and 15.12.2011. Further the plaintiff- appellant never challenged the cancellation order of 25.08.2011, therefore, suit filed by the plaintiff-appellant may kindly be dismissed. 4. That on the basis of pleadings of the parties, the learned trial court framed the following issues:- ^^1- vk;k oknh izfroknhx.k ds fo:) okn i= esa of.kZr rF;ksa ds vk/kkj ij LFkk;h fu"ks/kkKk ikus dk vf/kdkjh gS\ &oknh& 2- vk;k oknh izfroknhx.k ds fo:) okn i= esa of.kZr rF;ksa ds vk/kkj ij vkns'kkRed fu"ks/kkKk ikus dk vf/kdkjh gS\ &oknh& 3- vk;k vkbZ-Mh-,l-,e-Vh- ;kstuk ds v/;{k ftyk/kh'k] cwUnh gksus o mUgsa okn esa i{kdkj ugha cuk;s tkus ls oknh dk okn i{kdkj ds vla;kstu ds nks"k ds dkj.k [kkfjt fd;s tkus ;ksX; gS\ &izfroknhx.k& 4- vuqrks"k\** 5. In order to substantiate the averments made in the plaint, the plaintiff-appellant examined himself as PW-1 and produced documents Ex.1-Auction Information Letter, Ex.2-Receipt and Ex.3-Receipt. 6. The respondents, in order to controvert the averments of the suit and the evidence so adduced, examined DW-1 Dayawati Saini and produced documents Ex. A1-certified copy of Auction Information, Ex. A2-certified copy of sell permission letter, Ex. A3- Letter written to senior town planner and Ex. A4-certified copy of the details of the CMC meeting proceedings. 7. That the learned trial Court, after hearing the arguments of the counsel for the parties vide its judgment and decree dated [2025:RJ-JP:21094] (4 of 8) [CSA-480/2024] 11.08.2015 dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff-appellant on the ground that first auction was never finalized and the same was cancelled vide order dated 25.08.2011, and that the said cancellation was never assailed by the plaintiff-appellant, therefore, the plaintiff-appellant has no right to seek the injunction as prayed for. 8. That upon being aggrieved of the dismissal of the said suit, the plaintiff-appellant preferred a regular first appeal before the Appellate Court. The learned Appellate Court after hearing the arguments of the respective parties, vide impugned order dated 12.09.2024 dismissed the appeal preferred by the plaintiff- appellant and confirmed the order of dismissal of the suit by the trial Court. The learned Appellate Court also reiterated the finding of the trial Court that after cancellation of the first auction proceedings of 25.08.2011, the plaintiff-appellant has no right to seek injunction over the second auction as he failed to assail the order dated 25.08.2011, and accordingly dismissed the first appeal. 9. Being aggrieved by both the orders, the plaintiff-appellant has preferred this second appeal. 10. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant submits that both the learned Courts below have erred in dismissing the suit of the plaintiff-appellant, while overlooking the fact that the plaintiff- appellant was the highest bidder and had deposited 1/4th of the bid amount on 19.02.2009 in terms of auction proceedings in 2009; therefore, re-auctioning the shop No.2 vide second auction notice dated 14.12.2011 and 15.12.2011 is bad in law. [2025:RJ-JP:21094] (5 of 8) [CSA-480/2024] 11. He further submits that the learned Appellate Court did not adhere to the provisions contained under Order 41 Rule 31 of CPC. Thus, the learned Appellate Court has erred in dismissing the appeal. 12. Heard learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellant and perused the record. 13. It is an admitted position that the plaintiff-appellant was one of the highest bidders who participated in the auction proceedings in 2009 and deposited its 1/4th of the bid amount on 19th February, 2009, but the auction proceedings of 2009 were never finalized and as per the decision taken by the respondents, the auction proceedings of 2009 were cancelled on 25.08.2011 and the said decision was communicated to the plaintiff-appellant on 02.12.2011 and the said cancellation of auction proceedings was never challenged by the plaintiff-appellant. From the record of the case, it is evident that respondents have cancelled the first auction proceedings vide Ex A-4 dated 25.08.2011 and the plaintiff- appellant in his cross examination admitted that ";g ckr lgh gS fd eq>s ;s lwpuk ns nh Fkh fd vkidh nqdku dh uhykeh fujLr dj nh xbZ gS", therefore, the findings recorded by the learned courts below appears to be perfectly valid and in accordance with the established law. 14. That it is a well settled position of law that any highest bidder does not have a right to get the bid confirmed in his favour, and the right to cancel the bid always lies with the issuing authorities, and in the present case, before the confirmation of the bid, the authority concerned had decided to cancel the said [2025:RJ-JP:21094] (6 of 8) [CSA-480/2024] auction and informed the plaintiff-appellant of the same, re- notified the date of second auction, therefore, the plaintiff- appellant has no right to assail the subsequent auction proceedings merely because he was one of the participants of the previous auction proceedings. 15. 15. In Haridwar Singh vs Bagun Sumbrui And Ors reported in 1972 SC 1242, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that till confirmation of the bid is conveyed to the highest bidder, no concluded contract comes into existence. 16. That the question as to whether the bid is adequate or insufficient, is mainly the domain of the appropriate authority and, the highest bidder has no absolute right to challenge such order. It is always the endeavor of the authority, auctioning the property to have the maximum price. Thus in any case, it is the domain of the appropriate authority to consider the adequacy of the bid. Apart from the above, the right to participate in the second auction was always available to the plaintiff-appellant. 17. A bare perusal to the findings recorded by the learned trial Court as well as of the learned First Appellate Court reveals that both the courts below have considered the pleadings of the parties and evidence on record at length and from the bare perusal of the impugned orders, it is evident that there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned orders. 18. Further, the question of law proposed in the second appeal falls within the realms of questions of fact and does not fall within the purview of any substantial question of law. [2025:RJ-JP:21094] (7 of 8) [CSA-480/2024] 19. That in the decision reported in [AIR 2020 SC (4321)], Nazir Mohamed vs J.Kamala And Ors. the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the condition precedent for entertaining and deciding a second appeal is the existence of a substantial question of law. In Kondiba Dagadu Kadam vs. Savitribai Sopan Gujjar [(1999) (3) SCC 722, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that after the amendment, a second appeal can be filed only if a substantial question of law is involved in the case and it is not within the domain of the High Court to investigate the grounds on which the findings were arrived at, by the last court of fact, being the first appellate court. As such, a second appeal cannot be decided on equitable grounds rather conditions mentioned in section 100 must be strictly complied with to admit and maintain a second appeal. In Navaneethammal v. Arjuna Chetty, (1996) 6 SCC 166, it was held that the High Court should not re-appreciate the evidence to reach another possible view in order to set aside the findings of fact arrived at by the first appellate court. 20. In view of the discussions made herein above, no question of law much less any substantial question of law is involved in the second appeal requiring interference by this court in exercise of its jurisdiction under section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure. 21. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this court is of the considered opinion that the findings of the learned trial court as well as the appellate court are based on a proper appreciation of oral and documentary evidence. Hence, concurrent findings of the learned trial court as well as the appellate court are [2025:RJ-JP:21094] (8 of 8) [CSA-480/2024] found immaculate and infallible in the eye of law. Accordingly, no substantial question of law is made out, the impugned judgment and decree passed by learned courts below are hereby affirmed and in result thereof, the second appeal being devoid of any merits, is hereby dismissed. 22. Any other pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. (MANEESH SHARMA),J SOURAV /44