- (1.) R. K. Mahajan, J. This First Appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree passed by Additional District Judge, Ghazipur, dated 15-7-93 in original Suit No. 28 of 1976 decreeing Rs. 19,525 with inter est pendente lite and future at the rate of 6% per annum against the defendant-respon dent with cost.
(2.) IN order to understand and decide the controversy involved in th;'s case, the following facts are relevant: Respondent-plaintiff in pursuance of advertisement pub lished in the newspaper 'aaj' took part in the auction held by Liquidator on 6-5-74 at the premises of Deokari Cooperative Sugar Mill. The plaintiff- respondent's bid was the highest i. e. for Rs. 78,100. IN terms of the auction the plaintiff- respondent had deposited Rs, 19,515 (l/4th of the bid money) with the auctioner at the spot. The remaining amount of the bid was to be paid after acceptance. The bid was not accepted for a long time and finally the acceptance of the bid was communicated to the plaintiff respondent through letter dated 20-1-76 by; appellant. The plaintiff-respondent kept on making correspondence with the appellant for refund of amount deposited by him and he even effected notice under Sec tion 117 of the U. P. Cooperative Societies Act before filing the suit. The grievance of the plaintiff-respondent is that the goods became rotten or deficient because of the delay in the ac ceptance. The defendant had taken un reasonable time to confirm the sale. The plaintiff further asserts in the plaint that he was given to understand that the bid would be accepted within 15 days. Since the bid was not accepted for a considerable long time and it was finally accepted on 20-1-76, after 20 months. The plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of l/4th amount deposited by him at the time of auction. The case of the appellant-defendant is that the auction was held on 6-5-74 and was finally accepted on 20-1-76, thus there was a concluded contract. There was no con dition regarding the period of acceptance of the offer. The bid was accepted on 20-1- 76, as such, the plaintiff cannot resile from it. It is also stated by the appellant-defendant that the trial court wrongly made inter pretation of Section 6 (2) of th Contract Act regarding the acceptance of the proposal.
(3.) THE trial court gave a finding in favour of the plaintiff that the defendant took 20 months time accept the auction and it was unreasonable time to do so and the plaintiff could revoke the proposal before the acceptance. THE trial court was also of the view that a valid notice has been served under Section 117 of the U. P. Cooperative Societies Act. THE trial court accordingly decreed the suit. Feeling aggrieved, the State has filed the present First Appeal. Learned Standing Counsel has sub mitted that since the bid was accepted and l/4th money was deposited by plaintiff in pursuance thereof, as such there was no occasion for the appellant- defendant to go back from the bid. He further submitted that wrong interpretation has been made to Section 6 (2) of the Contract Act by the trial court.;