JUDGMENT 1. (Oral) - The present second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been filed by the appellant-defendant against the judgment and decree dated 28.02.1994 passed by the learned Additional District Judge No.1, Sriganganagar in Civil Appeal (Decree) No. 16/1993 "M/s Devkinandan Contractor (P) Ltd. v. Rajasthan State Agricultural Marketing Board, Jaipur" by which, he reversed the judgment and decree dated 21.07.1993 passed by the learned Additional Munsif & Judicial Magistrate No.1, Sriganganagar in a suit for permanent injunction which was dismissed by the learned Trial Court but the learned First Appellate Court had allowed the suit in favour of the respondent-plaintiff. 2. The defendant-appellant-Rajasthan State Agricultural Marketing Board has filed the present second appeal aggrieved by the reversal of the decree of rejection of the suit by the Trial Court, by the First Appellate Court on 28.02.1994 in Appeal No. 16/1993 "M/s Devkinandan Contractor (P) Ltd. v. Rajasthan State Agricultural Marketing Board, Jaipur" . 3. 2. The defendant-appellant-Rajasthan State Agricultural Marketing Board has filed the present second appeal aggrieved by the reversal of the decree of rejection of the suit by the Trial Court, by the First Appellate Court on 28.02.1994 in Appeal No. 16/1993 "M/s Devkinandan Contractor (P) Ltd. v. Rajasthan State Agricultural Marketing Board, Jaipur" . 3. The learned Trial Court had rejected the suit of the plaintiff-respondent with the following findings returned by it on issue No.1 which are quoted herein below for ready reference:- fook|d la[;k 1 bl fook|d dks lkfcr djus dk Hkkj izFker% izfroknh ij Mkyk x;k gS izfroknh dks ;g fl) djuk Fkk fd oknh fufonk Lohd'r gksus ls iwoZ viuh vkWQj fonM~k ugha dj ldrsA bl laca/k esa izfroknh }kjk vius tokcnkos esa vafdr fd;k x;k gS fd fufonk vkeU=.k dh 'krksZa ds vuqlkj Bsdsnkj }kjk izLrqr njsa fufonk izLrqr djus dh fnukad ls 'krZ 11 ds vuqlkj 120 fnu rd ekU; jgrh gSA bl izdkj bl nkSjku Bsdsnkj viuh vkQj dks fonM~k ugha dj ldrsA izfroknh dh vksj ls Jh n;kd'".k xks;y dks ijhf{kr djok;k x;k gS l'kiFk dFkuksa esa izdV fd;k gS fd fufonkvksa ds laca/k esa tks 'krZ Fkh og izn'kZ 3 ds lkFk layXu gS blh izdkj oknh us viuh izfrijh{k.k esa tkfgj fd;k gS fd fufonk dh 'krZ ogh gS tks Nih gqbZ gS blesa fonM~kpoy dks dksbZ izko/kku ugha gSA ,slh 'krZ izn'kZ&3 fufonk lwpuk rFkk 'krZ 11 ,u0vkbZ0Vh0 Qksj odZ esa of.kZr gSA izfroknh ds ;ksX; vf/koDrk dk rdZ gS fd fufonk vkea=.k 'krksZa ds vuqlkj fufonk,a fufonk izkIr gksus dh fnukad ls pkj ekg rd ekU; jgsxh bl nkSjku fufonk fonM~k ugha dh tk ldrhA tcfd oknh ds ;ksX; vf/koDrk dh cgl gS fd vkWQj dks Lohdkj fd, tkus ls iwoZ mls fdlh Hkh le; okfil fy;k tk ldrk gS fufonk Lohd'r gksus ls iwoZ vkWQj dks fonM~k ugha djus ds laca/k esa ;fn dksbZ 'krZ yxkbZ tkrh gS rks og fof/k ekU; ugha gS vius bl rdZ ds leFkZu esa ,0vkbZ0vkj0 1988 nsgyh 224 rFkk ,0vkbZ0vkj0 1972 ,e0ih0 ist 131 U;kf;d n'"Vkar izLrqr fd,A eSaus ijLij fojks/kh rdksZa ,oa fordksZa ij lexzrk ls fopkj fd;kA mDr U;kf;d n'"Vkarksa dk lknj voyksdu fd;kA ,0vkbZ0vkj0 1972 ,e0ih0 ist 131 o ,0vkbZ0vkj0 1988 nsyh 224 U;kf;d fofu'p; esa fof/k dk ;g fl)kUr izfrikfnr fd;k x;k gS fd fdlh izLrko dks Lohdkj fd, tkus ls iwoZ izLrko dk [k.Mu fd;k tk ldrk gS izLrqr U;kf;d n'"Vkarksa esa gks U;kf;d fl)kUr izfrikfnr fd, x, gS muls eSa lknj lger gwa ysfdu izdj.k esa izLrqr ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa izkFkhZ dks U;kf;d n'"Vkarksa ls dksbZ enn ugha feyrh D;ksafd fufonk ekU=.k dh izR;{k'krZ ds vuqlkj fufonk 120 fnu rd fonM~k ugha dh tk ldrh FkhA ;g 'krZ izR;{k Fkh rFkk oknh dks bldh iwoZ esa tkudkjh FkhA izLrqr nLrkost izn'kZ&3 rFkk ,u0vkbZ0Vh0 Qksj odZ dh 'krZ 11 ds voyksdu ls Hkh izdV gS fd fufonk pkj ekg rd ekU; jgsxh rFkk blls iwoZ vkQj fonM~k ugha dh tk ldrhA ;fn iwoZ esa fonM~k dh tkrh gS rks vfxze/ku tCr fd;k tk ldrk gS ;g Hkh Li"V gS fd An option given for value is not revocable. It is an after together with a contract that the offer will not be revoked during the time, if any, specified in the option. bl izdkj ewY; ds fy, fn;k x;k fodYi izfr lgj.kh; ugha gSA mijksDr foospu ls Li"V gS fd izR;{k 'krZ ds vuqlkj oknh izLrqr fufonk dks pkj ekg ds Hkhrj gS fd izR;{k 'krZ ds vuqlkj oknh izLrqr fufonk dks pkj ekg ds Hkhrj fonM~k ugha dj ldrk vr% bl fook|d dk fu.kZ; izfroknh ds i{k esa rFkk oknh ds foi{k esa fd;k tkrk gSA vkns'k vr% oknh dk okn ckcr tkjh fd, tkus LFkkbZ fu"ks/kkKk [kkfjt fd;k tkrk gS ifjfLFkfr;ksa dks ns[krs gq, [kpkZ i{kdkjku viuk&viuk ogu djsaxsA rnuqlkj fMdzh ijpk rS;kj fd;k tkosA fu.kZ; vkt fnukad 21-7-1993 dks foo'r U;k;ky; esa m)ksf"kr fd;k x;kA Sd/- fouksn dqekj Hkjokuh vij eqfUlQ ,oa U;kf;d eftLV~sV] la[;k&1] JhxaxkuxjA " 4. The appeal of the plaintiff, namely Appeal No.16/1993 "M/s Devkinandan Contractor (P) Ltd. v. Rajasthan State Agricultural Marketing Board, Jaipur" came to be allowed by the first appellate court of learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Sriganganagar with the following findings in favour of the plaintiff-respondent which are also quoted herein below for ready reference:- ;g fookfnr ugha gS fd izR;FkhZ us fufonk;sa vkefU=r dh Fkh] vkSj vihykFkhZ us fufonk nsus ds ckn mls 14-11-1983 dk vFkkZr~ fufonk,a [kksyus ls iwoZ fonM~k dj fy;k FkkA ;g Hkh fookfnr ugha gS fd izR;FkhZ }kjk fufonk vkea=.k dh 'krZ la[;k 11 ds vuqlkj dksbZ Hkh Bsdsnkj viuh fufonk 120 fnu ls iwoZ fonM~k ugha dj ldrk gS] vr% ;g ns[kuk gS fd D;k vihykFkhZ dk vkWQj ;k fufonk Lohd'r fd;s tkus ls iwoZ vihykFkhZ mls fonM~k dj ldrk Fkk] ;k ughaA v/khuLFk U;k;ky; us bl rudh esa ;g ekuk gS fd vihykFkhZ mlds }kjk izLrqr fufonk dks izn'kZ&3 rFkk ,u0vkbZ0Vh0 Qksj odZ dh 'krZ la[;k 11 ds vuqlkj pkj ekg rd fufonk fonM~k ugha dj ldrk FkkA gekjs le{k vihykFkhZ dh vksj ls izLrqr U;k; n'"Vkar 1988 ( 2 ) vkjchVjs'ku ykW fjiksVZ 414&,l0 vkRek flag cuke ,u0Vh0ih0lh0 fyfeVsM] esa vkU/kzizns'k mPp U;k;ky; us ;g er vfHkO;Dr fd;k gS fd fufonk [kksyus dh rkjh[k ls lkB fnu rd fonM~k ugha dh tk ldrh Fkh] ijUrq Bsdsnkj us fufonk [kksyus dh rkjh[k ls nks fnu iwoZ fufonk fonM~k dj yh vksj mldk Vs.Mj blds ckn Lohd'r fd;k x;k] ,oa vusZLV euh tCr dh xbZ rks ;g ekuk x;k fd Bsdsnkj dks fufonk fonM~k djus dk vf/kdkj Fkk vkSj fufonk vkefU=r djus okyk Bsdsnkj ds fufonk fonM~k djus ds vf/kdkj dks ckf/kr djrs gq, dksbZ 'krZ bl izdkj dh ugha yxk ldrk gSA blh izdkj ,0vkbZ0vkj0 1992 e/; izns'k ist 131] esa/kkjk 5 lafonk vf/kfu;e dk o.kZu djrs gq, ;g crk;k x;k gS fd dksbZ Hkh O;fDr mlds vkWQj dks Lohd'r gksus ls igys fonM~k djus dk vf/kdkjh gS vkSj bl lEcU/k esa dksbZ Hkh 'krZ yxkbZ tkus ij mUgsa dsoy iz'kklfud funsZ'k gh ekuk tk;sxk vkSj mudk izHkko dkuwu dh/kkjkvksa vuqlkj ugha gks ldrkA blh izdkj dk fl)kUr ,0vkbZ0vkj0 1971 enzkl ist 28 ,oa ,0vkbZ0vkj0 1988 nsgyh ist 224 esa izfrikfnr fd;k x;k gSA bu U;k; n'"Vkarksa dks v/khuLFk U;k;ky; us Hkh voyksdu dj buls lgefr trkbZ gS] ijUrq dsoy izR;FkhZ }kjk fudkyh xbZ fufonk vkeU=.k dh 'krksZa esa 120 fnu ls iwoZ fufonk fonM~k ugha djus dh 'krZ gksus ds vk/kkj ij vihykFkhZ dks izR;FkhZ ds ;gka nh gqbZ fufonk fonM~k djus gsrq vf/kdkjh ugha ekuk] ijUrq gekjh jk; esa mDr foospu lgh ugha gS] D;ksafd mDr U;k; n'"Vkarksa esa ;g Li"V fd;k x;k gS fd fufonk,a vkefU=r djus okyk Bsdsnkj ;k vkWQj nsus okys O;fDr ds vkWQj dks fonM~k djus ds dkuwuh vf/kdkj ds lEcU/k esa dksbZ 'krZ ugha yxk ldrk gS] vkSj u gh ,slh dksbZ 'krZ dkuwu dk LFkku ys ldrh gSA gekjs le{k mDr U;k; n'"Vkarksa ds foijhr izR;FkhZ dh vksj ls dksbZ U;k; n'"Vkar izLrqr ugha fd;k x;k gSA ,slh fLFkfr esa mDr U;k; n'"Vkarksa ds vk/kkj ij fo}ku v/khuLFk U;k;ky; }kjk fn;k x;k fu.kZ; mfpr ugha dgk tk ldrkA vr% fujLr fd;k tkdj ;g rudh vihykFkhZ ds i{k esa o izR;FkhZ ds fo:) fu.khZr dh tkrh gSA mijksDr foospu ds vk/kkj ij vihy vihykFkhZ Lohdkj dh tkdj v/khuLFk U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr fu.kZ; ,oa fMdzh fnukad 21-7-1993 fujLr fd;s tkrs gSa] vkSj vihykFkhZ dk okn izR;FkhZ ds fo:) bl izdkj fMdzh fd;k tkrk gS fd izR;FkhZ vius }kjk ikfjr vkns'k fnukad 24-1-1984] 6-2-1984] 6-3-1984 o 20-3-1984 ds v/khu vihykFkhZ ls 38]000@& dh ;k vU; dksbZ jkf'k vihykFkhZ }kjk viuh Bsdsnkjh esa viuk uke iathd'r djok;s tkus ckcr fnukad 31-10-1983 dks izR;FkhZ ds ikl FDR ds vUrxZr tek djkbZ xbZ LVsf.Max flD;wfjVh jkf'k esa ls ;k vihykFkhZ dks vU; izdkj ls ns; ;k ns; gksus okyh fdlh jkf'k esa ls dkVus vFkok fdlh izdkj ls lek;kstu djus ;k mDr dfFkr jkf'k dks fdlh izdkj ls vihykFkhZ ls olwy djus ls fu"ks/k jgsxkA gtkZ [kpkZ vihy i{kdkjku viuk&viuk ogu djsaxsA mDr vkns'k vkt fnukad 28-02-1984 dks [kqys U;k;ky; esa fy[kk;k tkdj lquk;k x;kA Sd/- vij ftyk U;k;k/kh'k la[;k&1 Jh xaxkuxj jkt0 " 5. In the present second appeal filed by the defendant-appellant Rajasthan State Agricultural Marketing Board, a coordinate Bench of this Court had famed the following substantial question of law on 02.09.1994 which reads as under:- "Whether in the facts & circumstances of the case, the appellant was well within his right legally to forfeit the earnest money." 6. The learned counsel Mr. S.G. Ojha appearing for the appellant-defendant relying upon the decisions of this Court in the case of Bhanwar Lal v. The State of Rajasthan & Ors. reported in AIR 1976 Rajasthan 215 and that of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Highways Authority of India v. Ganga Enterprises & Anr. reported in (2003) 7 SCC 410 urged that the plaintiff was bound to keep his offer/tender price given to the appellant-Marketing Committed alive for a period of 120 days as per the conditions stipulated in the Notice Inviting Tender ('NIT') and, therefore, his withdrawal of the offer/tender price prior to that stipulated period of 120 days was not legal and, therefore, the appellant-defendant was justified in forfeiting the earnest money of the plaintiff-respondent-contractor. 7. On the other hand, the learned counsel Ms. Rekha Borana appearing for the plaintiff-respondent relied upon the judgment, as referred by the learned First Appellate Court, of this Court in the case of Chetanram Ramgopal v. Chief Engineer, PWD, Rajasthan & Ors. reported in AIR 1999 Rajasthan 315 and submitted that as per Section 5 of the Contract Act, 1912, the withdrawal of the offer was justified prior to its acceptance and the judgments cited by the learned counsel for the appellant is distinguishable, as the same dealt with the statutory conditions stipulated under the Rajasthan Excise Rules, 1956, according to which, if the tenderer withdraws his tender within the stipulated period then, his earnest money could be forfeited by the Department. The learned counsel Ms. The learned counsel Ms. Rekha Borana also submitted that the respondent-plaintiff has drawn the attention of the Court towards Exhibit-10, the communication dated 26.12.1983 by which, the Executive Engineer of the appellant Marketing Board had apparently rejected the earlier offer of the respondent-plaintiff-contractor and had called upon all the contractors including the plaintiff-respondent to give the revised offer for the work in question, as the earlier rates were found to be higher, which was replied by the plaintiff-respondent-contractor in negative vide his letter dated 02.01.1984 asserting therein that in view of the earlier offer having been withdrawn by the letter dated 14.11.1983 and thereby, we are not in the list of the tenderers for the said work in question and, therefore, we are not attending the negotiations for revision of rates as informed by the Executive Engineer vide his aforesaid letter dated 26.12.1983. The learned counsel, therefore, submitted that the learned First Appellate Court was perfectly justified in reversing the judgment and decree of the learned Trial Court and in injuncting the appellant-defendant-Board for not forfeiting the earnest money of the plaintiff-contractor. 8. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties at some length and perused the record of the case including the judgments cited by them at the bar. It is true that the time-frame of 120 days was made by the appellant-defendant-Board but the appellant-Marketing Board, admittedly, called upon all the contractors by his letter dated 26.12.1983 (Ex. 10) to revise their offers. Irrespective of such fresh negotiations, the fact remains that Section 5 of the Contract Act permits for withdrawal of the offer prior to its acceptance. In the present case, it was not a statutory condition, as was obtaining in the Rajasthan Excise Rules for liquor contracts in the case of Bhanwar Lal v. State of Rajasthan (supra). The learned counsel Ms. Rekha Borana has rightly referred the judgment in the case of Chetanram Ramgopal v. Chief Engineer, PWD, Rajasthan & Ors. (supra) wherein, a learned Single Judge of this Court had held that the conditions in the NIT that the tenders for the work shall remain open for acceptance for specified periods and the dispute with regard to any loss suffered by the State and caused by the tenderer was open to be adjudicated by the Civil Court. (supra) wherein, a learned Single Judge of this Court had held that the conditions in the NIT that the tenders for the work shall remain open for acceptance for specified periods and the dispute with regard to any loss suffered by the State and caused by the tenderer was open to be adjudicated by the Civil Court. The other judgments relied upon by the First Appellate Court in the judgment under appeal clearly support the claim of the respondent-plaintiff-contractor that such offer could be withdrawn before its acceptance. 9. In the present case, admittedly, the original offer given by the plaintiff-contractor was never accepted by the appellant-Marketing Board and that fact is established by the plaintiff by producing the communication dated 26.12.1983 (Ex.10) wherein, the Executive Engineer of the appellant Marketing Board had called upon all the contractors for attending the meeting on 03.01.1984 to give their revised offers as the earlier rates were found to be on the higher side. Thus, in view of this position, the question of forfeiture of the earnest money of the plaintiff-contractor could not arise and, therefore, the forfeiture of the earnest money of the plaintiff-contractor has rightly been held illegal by the learned First Appellate Court and this Court finds no error in the judgment injuncting the appellant-Board from forfeiting the earnest money and, therefore, the substantial question of law framed and quoted herein above is liable to be answered in favour of the respondent-plaintiff-contractor and the present appeal of the appellant-Marketing Board is liable to be dismissed. 10. Accordingly and in view of the above, the present second appeal filed by the appellant-Rajasthan State Agricultural Marketing Board, Jaipur stands dismissed; and substantial question of law is answered in favour of the respondent-plaintiff-contractor. No costs. A copy of this order be sent to the Courts below and to the parties concerned forthwith.Appeal dismissed. *******