1 ( 2025:HHC:44894 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA RFA No. 147 of 2015 Reserved on: 03.12.2025 Date of decision: 22.12.2025 ________________________________________________ Sandeep Gupta & others …..Appellants. Versus State of H.P. & others ……Respondents. ________________________________________________ Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja, Judge. 1 Whether approved for reporting? For the appellants: Mr. Bhupender Gupta, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Pranjal Munjal, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. Balvinder Singh Ballu, Deputy Advocate General. Sushil Kukreja, Judge. The instant appeal has been preferred by the appellants, who are legal heirs of the original plaintiffs before the learned Trial Court (hereinafter referred to as “the appellants”) under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for shot “CPC”) against judgment and decree, dated 12.01.2015, passed by learned Additional District Judge-II, Solan, District Solan, H.P. (hereinafter referred to “the learned Trial Court), in Civil Suit No. 3ADJ-II/1 of 2014/2007, 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 ( 2025:HHC:44894 ) whereby the suit filed by the original plaintiffs for recovery of damages against the defendants (respondents herein) was dismissed. 2(a). The brief facts of the case are that initially the original plaintiffs filed a suit before this Court, but it was later on sent to District Judge, Solan, as the pecuniary jurisdiction of the Courts was enhanced. 2(b). As per the plaintiff, they were partners of M/s S.S. Enterprises and they sought a decree for damages in the sum of Rs.20,50,000/-, i.e. Rs.13,50,000/-, being the cost of plot, Rs.5,00,000/- as damages for litigation expenses, consequential financial loss, mental agony, pain suffered by them and Rs.2,00,000/- as general and special damages alongwith interest @ 18% per annum against the defendants jointly and severally on the ground that they had formed a registered firm in the name and style of M/s S.S. Enterprises and had approached the defendants for allotment of industrial plot at Baddi, District Solan, H.P., for running business of readymade garments. The plaintiffs further averred that vide letter dated 08.03.1995, plot No. 85, measuring 900 square meters, situated in Industrial Area, Baddi, District Solan, was allotted to the plaintiffs by the 3 ( 2025:HHC:44894 ) defendants and possession thereof was handed over to them on 14.03.1995 by the Assistant Engineer of the defendants. Subsequently, the plaintiffs got approved site plan for raising building and also obtained water connection and when they were raising construction and laying foundation for the sheds, defendants served them with a show cause notice. The said show cause notice was replied by the plaintiffs, vide reply letter, dated 26.12.1995, whereby they apprised defendant No. 4 the eventualities, which prevented them from completing the construction within time. However, during the month of February, 1998, when the attorney of the plaintiffs visited the spot, he found M/s Cassette and Rubinetteria, another business establishment, in possession there-over. 2(c). The plaintiffs, being aggrieved, preferred a civil suit in the court of learned Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Nalagarh, which was partly decreed, vide judgment and decree dated 29.06.2004, and the action of the defendants in cancelling their plot was held illegal and void. However, the learned Court also held that the plaintiffs were at liberty to seek appropriate relief for the hardship caused to them. Thereafter, the plaintiffs served the defendants with legal 4 ( 2025:HHC:44894 ) notice, dated 23.08.2004, under Section 80 CPC, calling upon them to allot a plot of the same dimension in the same industrial area to them and also to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- as damages suffered by them for undergoing mental agony, pain and suffering and financial loss in litigation. However, the defendants, despite receiving the said notice, did not file their reply. Hence, the plaintiffs filed a suit for recovery of damages against the defendants before the learned Trial Court. 2(d). The defendants contested the suit by filing joint written statement, wherein they raised preliminary objections of maintainability, cause of action limitation, suppression of facts, estoppels etc.. On merits, the defendants did not deny the pleadings raised by the plaintiffs qua the allotment of plot by them in favour of the plaintiffs and its subsequent cancellation by them. They also did not deny the institution of a civil suit by the plaintiffs and passing of a decree in the civil suit. The defendants pleaded that the plaintiffs failed to comply with the terms and conditions of the agreement, as they did not raise necessary infrastructure on the plot within the stipulated time, and despite notice, the defendants failed to do so, therefore, as per the defendants they had rightly 5 ( 2025:HHC:44894 ) cancelled the allotment and had resumed the possession thereof. The defendants further averred that the plea of damages was available to the plaintiffs at the time of institution of earlier suit and since they had abandoned their claim, therefore, the suit filed by them was hopelessly barred by time and thus not maintainable. As per the defendants, in reply to their show cause notice, dated 13.11.1995, the plaintiffs informed that they had converted their business concern from M/s S.S. Enterprises to M/s Ess Ess Enterprises and after cancellation of the allotment and resumption of the allotment of their plot, they had approached the Revenue Minister of Government of Himachal Pradesh for the allotment of alternate plot in that area to them and on their request, another plot No. 9-A, measuring 1000 square meters had been allotted to them. Thus, the defendants questioned the maintainability of the instant suit. The defendants denied that due to their alleged wrongful acts, the plaintiff suffered damages, pecuniary or non-pecuniary loss. Lastly, the defendants sought dismissal of the suit. 3. The plaintiffs filed replication, wherein they reiterated the averments made by them in their plaint. 6 ( 2025:HHC:44894 ) 4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the learned Trial Court, on 15.05.2010, framed the following issues: “1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for a decree of Rs.20,50,000/- as alleged alongwith interest, if so, at which rate and from what period? OPP 2. Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD 3. Whether the suit is barred by limitation? OPD 4. Whether the plaintiffs have no enforceable cause of action? OPD 5. Whether the suit has not been properly valued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction? OPD 6. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of parties? OPD 7. Whether the plaintiffs are stopped from filing the suit? OPD 8. Relief.” 5. The learned Trial Court after deciding issue No. 1 against the plaintiff, issues No. 2 to 4 in favour of the defendants, issues No. 5 and 6 against the defendants and issue No. 7 in favour of the defendants, the suit was dismissed. 6. The learned Senior Counsel for the appellants contended that the learned Trial Court had erred in returning the findings that the cause of action arose in favour of the plaintiffs on 19.06.1996, whereas the order of cancellation dated 19.06.1996 was held to be illegal, null and void vide 7 ( 2025:HHC:44894 ) judgement and decree dt. 29.06.2004, therefore, there was no occasion for the learned Trial Court to have come to the conclusion that the suit is barred by limitation. He further contended that the learned Trial Court has committed illegality in holding that the plaintiffs were estopped by their own acts and conduct from filing the suit, as the learned Trial Court has misread the oral as well as documentary evidence. He also contended that neither the suit was barred by limitation nor the plaintiffs could have been debarred from claiming damages from the defendants. 7. On the other hand, the learned Deputy Advocate General supported the impugned judgment and submitted that the same is the result of proper appreciation of both facts and law, thus it does not need interference of this Court. He prayed that the instant appeal, being devoid of merits, be dismissed. 8. At the very outset, it may be pertinent to mention here that the plaintiffs were non-suited by the learned Trial Court on the grounds of estoppel, limitation and also on the ground that the suit is barred under Order 2 Rule 2 CPC. According to the learned Trial Court, the cause of action to claim damages arose in favour of the plaintiffs on 8 ( 2025:HHC:44894 ) 19.06.1996, when Plot No. 85, allotted to them, had been cancelled by the defendants and the suit was not filed within a period of three years from 19.06.1996, as such the suit became time barred. 9. The learned Senior Counsel for the appellants contended that the learned Trial Court had erred while giving findings that cause of action had arisen in favour of the plaintiffs (appellants herein) on 19.06.1996, when the allotment of the plot in question had been cancelled by the defendants, rather the cause of action had arisen to them after the passing of judgment and decree dated 29.06.2004 Ex. PW-2/B by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Nalagarh, holding the order of cancellation dated 19.06.1996 to be illegal, null and void. Now the question which arises for consideration is as to whether the cause of action had arisen in favour of the plaintiffs on 19.06.1996, when the allotment of the plot in question had been cancelled by the defendants or after passing of judgment and decree dated 29.06.2004 when order of cancellation dated 19.06.1996 was declared to be illegal, null and void. 10. The perusal of judgment and decree, dated 29.06.2004, passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), 9 ( 2025:HHC:44894 ) Nalagarh, Ex. PW-2/B, shows that the suit, which was filed earlier by the plaintiffs, was for declaration with consequential relief of permanent injunction and for mandatory injunction and vide judgment dated 29.06.2004 the suit of the plaintiffs was partly decreed and in consequence thereof the findings were returned in favour of the plaintiffs holding the order of cancellation dated 19.06.1996 passed by the Director of Industries, Himachal Pradesh, Shimla to be illegal, null and void. However, the perusal of the impugned judgment and decree, dated 12.01.2015, shows that the learned Trial Court has not given its specific findings regarding the plea of the plaintiffs as to whether the cause of action arose in their favour on 29.06.2004 when order of cancellation dated 19.06.1996 was declared as illegal, null and void. While returning the findings on the issue of limitation, the learned Trial Court had simply stated that cause of action had arisen in favour of the plaintiffs on 19.06.1996 when the plot allotted to them had been cancelled by the defendants, but the suit was not filed within three years thereof, as such the suit has become time barred without going into the question as to whether the cause of action had arisen on 29.06.2004 or not. 10 ( 2025:HHC:44894 ) 11. The learned Senior Counsel for the appellants further submitted that the trial Court has also erred in holding that the plaintiffs were estopped from their own act and conduct from filing the suit on account of the fact that plot was not allotted to them, whereas from the documents placed on record, it is clear that the subsequent allotment was not in lieu of earlier allotment, which was wrongly cancelled by the defendants and merely the fact that the spellings of the firm have been changed was not such an important fact on the basis of which the plaintiffs could have been non-suited by the learned Trial Court. The learned Trial Court had also failed to give specific findings as to whether the cause of action had arisen in favour of the plaintiffs on 19.06.1996 when the allotment of plot in question had been cancelled by the defendants or after passing of judgment and decree dated 29.06.2004, when order of cancellation, dated 19.06.1996, was declared to be illegal, null and void 12. Therefore, in view of my aforesaid discussion, the judgement and decree passed by the ld. Trial court cannot be sustained, hence, the same is set-aside. The suit of the plaintiffs is ordered to be remanded back to the 11 ( 2025:HHC:44894 ) learned Trial Court for decision afresh in accordance with law. Trial Court is directed to give specific findings on all the contentions raised by the parties. 13. Since the matter pertains to the year 2007, therefore, no further opportunity shall be granted to either of the parties to lead evidence and the case shall be decided by the learned Trial Court strictly on the basis of the material already available on record. The learned Trial Court is further directed to decide the case on or before 30.06.2026. The parties are directed to appear before the learned Trial Court on 16th January, 2025. 14. Learned Registrar (Judicial) shall ensure that the entire record be remitted to the learned Reference Court forthwith. 15. In view of the above, the instant appeal is disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand(s) disposed of. ( Sushil Kukreja ) Judge 22nd December, 2025 (virender)