' Brief facts out of which present civil revision arises are that the respondent participated in the auction of plot in question, held by the petitioners/defendants. The bid of the respondent was highest. The petitioners/ defendants confiscated the earnest money of the respondent and also issued notice, dated 3-3-1991 to him directing the respondent to deposite the balance amount of the plot in question. The respondent' being aggrieved filed h suit for declaration with consequential relief against the petitioners. The contents of plaint reveal that the property in-question was put in auction on 15-1-1991; The bid of respondent was highest, who deposited Rs,1,94,300 as 1/10th of total sale price. The contents of plaint further reveal that the respondent had signed the condition of the auction subject to acceptance of the offer by D.G., L.D.A. Uptill 27-1-1991 failing which the same offer would become void. The D.G., L.D.A. Did not approve the bid of the respondent uptill 27-1-1991, therefore, respondent/plaintiff was no more interested in the transaction. The respondent/plaintiff also withdrew from the offer. The plaintiff/ respondent had also communicated to the defendants/petitioners about the revocation of offer, dated 15-1-1991 along with telegram, dated 8- 2-1991. The petitioners/defendants did not consider his withdrawal and no decision was intimated.
The respondent/plaintiff was intimated through letter, dated 3-3-1991 about the acceptance of his bid and also directed him to deposit remaining 9/10th of total sale price within 6 months. The respondent/plaintiff served the petitioners/defendants with legal notice and asked to refund his amount already deposited but the petitioners/defendants- refused to accept the claim of the respondent/plaintiff. The petitioners/defendants filed written statement and controverted the allegations levelled in the plaint. Out of pleadings of the parties, the learned trial Court framed the following issues:--
(1) Whether the plaintiff has got no locus standi and cause of action to bring the present suit? OPD
(2) Whether the instant Court lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the matter in hand? OPD
(3) Whether the suit has been property valued for the purposes of court-fee and jurisdiction, if so, what is the correct valuation for both the purposes? OPD
(4) Whether the present suit is not maintainable in the instant form? OPD
(5) Whether the defendants/L.D.A. Failed to accept the offer uptill 27-1-1991 and after the expiry of the said date, the plaintiff is not bound to accept the allotment letter and to pay the balance amount instead he is entitled to return of the amount already deposited with L.U.A. Amounting to Rs,1,94,300? 014
(6) Relief.
2. The learned trial Court after recording the evidence of the parties, accepted the suit vide judgment and decree, dated 20-11-1994. The petitioners/defendants being aggrieved filed an appeal before the learned Additional District Judge, Lahore, who dismissed the same vide judgment and decree, dated 4-11-2000. Hence, the present civil revision.
3. The learned counsel of the petitioners submits that the petitioners (LDA) issued printed terms and conditions of the auction and also mentioned the same in the public notice published in the daily "Nawa-iWaqat". The respondent/plaintiff mentioned note in written and subsequently, with connivance of staff of the petitioners, this fact was not appreciated by both the Courts below, therefore, judgments of both the Courts below are the result of misreading and non-reading of the record aad evidence of D.W.1 Faqeer Muhammad. He further submitted that the plaintiff/respondent admitted that he did not comply with the terms and conditions of the auction mentioned in the printed form. However, the respondent/plaintiff admitted that he did not deposit the amount in terms of note which was accepted by the D.G., L.D.A. That the matter must be finalized till 27-1-1991, otherwise the same would become void. He further submitted that the aforesaid note was not approved by the Director-General and forged signatures of the D.G. Was affixed on the note. He further submits that note is not prescribed any term and condition, therefore, Director General has no authority to relax the conditions mentioned in the public notice and printed form. He further urges that judgments of both the Courts below are the result of misreading and non-reading of the record. He further submits that both the Courts below decided the case in violation of terms and conditions prescribed by the respondents/ petitioners before auctioning the property in question. He further submits that both the Courts below misread Exh.D-1.
4. Learned counsel of respondent submits that both the Courts below have given concurrent findings of the facts against the petitioners, therefore, the revision petition is liable to be dismissed.
He further submits that the respondent/plaintiff submitted an application before the petitioners/defendants on 8-2-1991 to revoke his earlier offer, dated 15-1-1991 with the request to refund his amount deposited 1/10th of the total price vide receipt, dated 15-1-1991 but the defendants/petitioners failed to refund the amount of the respondent/plaintiff, therefore, judgments of both the Courts below shall justify to accept the suit of the respondent/plaintiff. He further submits that the petitioners did not initiate any proceedings against their employees. He further submits that this fact alone is sufficient that aforesaid note was written on the request of the respondent/plaintiff by the Director-General, therefore, original terms and conditions of the auction were impliedly repealed by the D.G. He further submits that the petitioners/defendants did not mention a single word in evidence of D.W.1 that aforesaid note was got signed by the petitioners/defendants by misrepresentation and fraud. He further submits that the petitioners/defendants failed to bring on record sufficient evidence to show that aforesaid note was got signed by the respondent/plaintiff through undue influence.
5. Learned counsel of the petitioners/defendants in rebuttal submits that the petitioners have taken definite stand in reply of para. No,5 of the written statement, therefore, written statement was not considered a piece of evidence by both the Courts below, therefore, both the Courts below decided the case without applying their independent mind.
6. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel of the parties and perused the record myself. It is better and appropriate to reproduce the facts in chronological order and relevant condition of auction to resolve the controversy between the parties:-
(i) Auction was held on 15-1-1991.
(ii) Respondent's bid was highest and respondent deposited Rs,1,94,300 as 1/10th of total sale price on 15-1-1991.
(iii) Respondent submitted an application for revocation of his offer before the Director-General on 8-2-1991. It bears stamp of the Department bearing Diary No, 2093, dated 9-2-1991.
(iv) D.W.1 admitted the acceptance and receipt of aforesaid letter.
(v) D.W.1 also admitted that final approval was given by the Director-General L.D.A. On 11-1-1991 and initimation was sent to respondent vide letter, dated 3-3-1991 intimating that his bid was accepted and also directing him to deposit remaining 9/10th of total sale price within six months.
(vi) Respondent sent legal notice to the petitioners/defendants to return his amount deposited as 1/10th.
(vii) Relevant condition of auction is reproduced hereunder:-- {{URDU TEXT}} ' The aforesaid facts reveal that a bid though accepted at an auction is subject to confirmation by the Allotment Committee of L.D.A. And that the bidder does not acquire a right to property unless and until such confirmation is given by the Allotment Committee. The provisions of auction are having statutory force as the same are based on rules and regulations of L.D.A. Meaning thereby the acceptance was, therefore, in no way final and did not amount to acceptance of offer constituted by the bid, to ripen into a concluded contract. In view of above narration of facts it is admitted fact that respondent had sent letter of revocation of his offer. Before the acceptance of his bid by the competent Authority i,e, Allotment Committee of L.D.A. The question for determination before me is whether in the circumstances of the case petitioners/defendants are justified to forfeit the 1/10th auction price deposited by the respondent or not. The aforesaid proposition of law was considered by a Divisoin Bench of this Court in Chaudhry Muhammad Younas's case (PLD 1972 Lahore 847) and laid down the following principle:--- "The tenders were invited for the sale of the property. Both the petitioner and the respondent submitted the tenders. An advertisement inviting tenders for the sale of the property is not an offer but an invitation of an offer. The tender in law is only an offer for the purchase of the property and if the tender of a person, even if it is the highest, is not accepted, he cannot make a grievance of the fact. The offer for the sale of the property does not give right to the offerer for its purchase. A tender only when accepted constitutes a binding contract; and unless the contract comes into existence the mutual rights and obligations do not arise."
' The Division Bench of Madras High Court also considered the aforesaid proposition of law in Joravarmull Champalal v. Jeygopaldas Ghanshamdas (AIR 1922 Madras 486) and laid down the following principle:-- "By taking what is, to my mind, the plaint common sense view, a person who bids at an auction, thereby does not conclude a contract but states an offer by which until he withdraws it himself, he becomes legally liable for the amount of his bid. But on the other hand, we think 'that like all other offers it is subject to the ordinary incidents of law that, until it is accepted, it is open to the offerer to withdraw it and make it as if it had not been made."
' Reference can also be wade to Trustees of Port of Karachi v. Messrs Muhammad Bakhsh & Sons (PLD 1959 Karachi 658).
Both the Courts below have given concurrent finding of fact against the petitioners. Learned counsel of the petitioners failed to point out any piece of evidence which was misreed by both the Courts below or violated any principle of law. In this view of the matter revision petition has no merit and the same is liable to be dismissed as per principle laid down by this Court in Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education v. Syed Khalid Mahmood (NLR -1995 Civil 114). Learned counsel of the petitioners has given much stress on the handwritten note below the conditions of auction. Even if the same is excluded the revision petition has no merit in view of aforesaid principle laid down by the superior Courts as the respondent/ plaintiff submitted application for revocation of his offer before acceptance by the Allotment Committee of L.D.A. It is pertinent to mention here that petitioners/defendants failed to bring on record sufficient evidence to discharge their onus in terms of written statement filed by the petitioners/ defendants. In this view of the matter, Director- General. L.D.A. Is directed to constitute a committee to probe into the matter as to who was responsible officer/ official who did not pursue the case diligently. In case the Committee finds that any officer/official is responsible then he is directed to take action against him under Efficiency and Discipline Rules. He is directed to do the needful within four months. He is further directed to submit report to Deputy Registrar (Judl.) of this Court within the stipulated period.
' With these observations this revision petition is disposed of.