RAJA SHAKEEL AHMAD, J. Through the instant revision petition, the petitioners have called in question the validity of Judgments/Decrees passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge Gilgit and learned Senior Civil Judge Gilgit, dated 29.11.2016, 29.10.2013 in C.F.A. No. 149/2016 and Civil Suit No.126/2001 respectively, whereby by both learned Judges have decreed the suit in favor of present respondents/defendants.
2. Brief facts of the case leading to the filing of the instant civil revision petition are that the present respondents/ plaintiffs (hereinafter called respondents) had filed the Civil Suit No. 126/2001 before the learned Senior Civil Judge Gilgit against the present petitioners/ defendants (hereinafter called petitioners) seeking declaration to the effect that the defendants may be direct to forfeit the earnest amount of Tender No. HMT/12/ 2001-02 (Clause II) Dated January 2001 and be restrained to continue the contract at the risk and cost of plaintiff and they also be restrained from deducting the money from the outstanding bill of the plaintiff relating to other contracts for the disputed contract and may be directed to release the money of the bills outstanding against the defendant on the basis of other contracts. Shortly narrated facts giving rise to filing of the suit are, that the present petitioners 1 and 2 invited bids for the contract and through open bidding the predecessor of the respondents (plaintiff) Namely Ghulam Mustafa and being the lowest bid was accepted on 03.02.2001 but the plaintiff claims that soon after he tendered his bid, he discovered that he has under mental and physical stress, due to high blood pressure as well as other disease he suffered from made his bid in response to said invitation of bid on very low and mentioned un workable rates which were far below than the rates of prudent person could offer. Feeling regret on his loss and unworkable rates soon after the bid i.e. on 06.02.2001 he submitted an application before the petitioners with a request to treat the offer of the respondent revoke and offered that his earnest money may be forfeited as a plenty under clause 6 of PAFZ (3137-A). The petitioners (defendants) refused to accept the application of the respondent (Plaintiff) and started risk purchase clause 7 of the above despite the fact that the plaintiff/respondents refuse to accept the letter of acceptance of the bid and not signed the contract with the present petitioners.
3. Present petitioners / defendants have submitted written statement and denied the contention of the plaintiff and asserted that after dispatch of the acceptance notice through registered mail on 03.02.2001 and submission of application by the respondent/plaintiff on 06.02.2001 is futile exercise and the plaintiff is under obligation to fulfill his contractual liabilities.
4. Out of divergent pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court framed as many as 13 issues including the relief and after recording evidence of the respective parties and hearing arguments, decreed the suit of the plaintiffs/ respondents, vide judgment/decree dated 29.10.2013.
5. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment/decree passed by the learned Trial Court, the petitioners preferred a Civil First Appeal before the Additional District and Sessions Judge Gilgit.
The learned first appellate Court after procuring attendance of the parties and hearing arguments, on behalf of both the parties, dismissed the Civil First Appeal filed by the petitioners by maintaining the Judgment/ Decree passed by the learned Trial Court and decreed the suit of the respondents.
6. Being discontent with the Judgment/Decree passed by the learned First Appellate Court the present petitioners have preferred the instant Civil Revision Petition before this court with a prayer that: "It is therefore prayed that this Honorable Court may be pleased to set aside impugned Judgment/ Decree dated 29.11.2016 of the Additional District and Sessions Judge Gilgit and also the impugned Judgment / Decree dated 29.10.2013, of learned Senior Civil Judge Gilgit and suit of plaintiffs/respondents may kindly be dismissed with cost by accepting this revision petition throughout to meet the ends of justice."
7. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that both the impugned Judgments/Decrees passed by the learned lower courts are totally against the law and facts of the case, hence not maintainable and liable to be set aside. Learned counsel for the petitioner further argued that both the learned Courts have been badly failed to appreciate and consider law and factual grounds between the parties and the impugned Judgments/Decrees passed are perverse, absurd and result of non-reading and misreading of evidences and the material available on record. The learned counsel for petitioners further continued his arguments by submitting that the petitioners by producing oral as well as documentary evidence have fully proved their defense established through written statement, while the respondents have been bitterly failed to prove their claim as asserted in the plaint as such the impugned Judgments/Decrees passed by the learned lower courts are not maintainable and suit of the respondents/ plaintiffs is liable to be dismissed. The learned counsel for the petitioners went on to argue that the learned lower courts have passed the impugned Judgments/Decrees in a very slipshod manner and wrong inferences have been drawn from the record of the case and even learned lower Courts have not bothered to peruse the available record, evidence, and passed the impugned Judgments/decrees which tantamount to non-reading and miss-reading of evidence, hence the impugned Judgment/Decree are not maintainable and liable to be set aside. The learned counsel accordingly requested that by accepting this Revision Petition, set aside both the impugned judgments/decrees passed by Court of senior Civil Judge Gilgit as well as Leaned Additional District Judge Gilgit and dismiss the suit of plaintiffs/ respondents in the interest of justice, law and equity.
8. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents passionately opposed the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners and strongly defended the impugned judgments/decrees passed by the learned lower Courts and contended that the judgments/decrees passed by learned lower Courts are result of correct appreciation of law and material available on file. He further submitted that petitioners have bitterly been failed to prove their defense set, through issues by leading evidences as it is very much evident from the statements recorded and issues framed/discussed in the issue wise findings of both the learned lower Courts. The learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that no illegality or irregularity, non-reading or mis-reading of evidence is shown by the learned counsel for petitioners/defendants, hence the instant Revision Petition is liable to be dismissed, being meritless as accrues no locus standi, in the larger interest of justice.
9. I have hearkened the arguments pro and contra advanced by learned counsel of the parties and gone through the available record with their able assistance.
10. The facts of the case are simple, that petitioners Nos.1 and 2 invited bids for the contract No.HMT/12/2001-2002. On 03-02-2001, through open bidding the petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 accepted the bid of the respondent namely Haji Ghulam Mustafa (late) being the lowest bidder. After acceptance of bid the 04.02.2001 and 05.02.2001 being holidays due to Sunday and Kashmir Solidarity Day, on 06.02.2002 the respondent Haji Ghulam Hussain (late) filed an application to the petitioners No.1 for revocation of his bid with the assertion that after the acceptance of his bid being lowest, he discovered that he has under mental and physical stress, due to high blood pressure as well as other disease he suffered from, made his bid in response to the said invitation of bids against the rate which were far below, and were un workable. He further requested that his earnest money may be forfeited as a penalty under clause 6 of PAFZ (31371A). However, despite expression of his inability to go ahead with the contract the petitioner No.1 declined the request of the respondent and started risk purchase under clause 7 of PAFZ 2120.
11. It also transpires from the perusal of the record that the petitioners have rescinded the request of the respondent for revocation of bid, with the contention that soon after the respondent offered the lowest bid for the proposed supplies then the same was accepted by petitioner No.1 and dispatched the acceptance notices through registered mail, and whatever, the efforts have been taken by the respondent on 06.02.2021 to retract the contract was a futile exercise, as he/respondent was not legally authorized to withdraw from the bid unilaterally, rather he was bound to fulfill his contractual liabilities. Despite the fact that the respondent had not signed the contract with the petitioners and in absence of any contract the contractual liabilities never occurred. It is astonishing here that without any valid contract signed between the parties the petitioners have purchased the stores/supplies at the risk of the respondent in compliance of the such an agreement which was never made between the parties. Nevertheless, it is very much pertinent to mention here that, there is no contract available on case file which was agreed and signed between the parties.
12. Material available on file speaks volume that acceptance of offer was not complete. Despite the fact that the petitioners are adamant to say that, they have dispatched the acceptance notice to the respondent through registered mail on 03.02.2001. The petitioners contend that since they have dispatched the acceptance notice then the contract has become completed/valid and the respondent is under the obligation of the valid contract. For convenience, the acceptance notice is reproduced hereunder as: "It is to inform you that your rates for Clause-II have been accepted. Please report to this office for signing of contract documents and other formalities."
After going through the details of the notices minutely, it appears that it doesn't constitute an absolute acceptance as required under section 7 of Contract Act, 1872. As the section 7 of Contract Act, 1872 reads as under: "7. Acceptance must be absolute. In order to convert a proposal into a promise, the acceptance must:
(i) be absolute and unqualified;
(ii) be expressed in some usual and reasonable manner, unless the proposal prescribed the manner in which it is to be accepted. If the proposal prescribes a manner in which it is accepted and the acceptance is not made in such manner, the proposal may within reasonable time after the acceptance is communicated to him, insist that his proposal shall be accepted in the prescribed manner and not otherwise, but if he fails to do so he accepts the acceptance."
Perusal of acceptance notice, in the light of section 7 of Contract Act, 1872 shows that, undoubtedly, the parties have not entered into a valid contract as per law, as the contract was incomplete. It is further evident from the General Tender Form and Instruction for Tenders that the same were signed by the petitioner No.1 only, not by the respondent. There was no complete acceptance by the petitioners. As per the contents of the letter, the respondent was called upon to sign the contract documents, which reveals that the contract was had to be signed by the parties, but before that the respondent revoked his offer by filing an application to petitioner No. 1 on 06.02.2001, with the plea to exculpate the respondent from the contractual obligations and even forfeiting his earnest money.
13. The powers of High Court under section 115, C.P.C. are very limited such revisional jurisdiction could be invoked only in the cases of exercise of jurisdiction by the lower courts not vested in them by law or the Courts had failed to exercise the jurisdiction so vested in them but same was exercised in an illegal manner or that some material irregularity was committed, or findings of subordinate Courts were suffering from misreading, non-reading of evidence or that the inference drawn was in utter disregard of evidence, but in the instant case after gone through the record and on the basis of arguments of the parties, I conceive that both the learned Courts below have exercised their jurisdiction in a befitting manner with a judicious approach. The Judgments/Decree passed by the learned lower Courts neither suffer any irregularity and infirmity or error nor the same are result of misreading or non-reading of evidence and based on cogent reasons, therefore, instant Revision Petition does not call for any interference by this Court.
14. Keeping in view the above, the instant Revision Petition bearing No.28/2017 is hereby dismissed being devoid of merit by maintaining the Judgments/Decrees passed by learned Courts below.
Instant Revision Petition is disposed of accordingly. Record of the lower court be sent back with attested copy of this judgment. File