JUDGMENT : Deepak Maheshwari, J. This first appeal under Section 96 of CPC has been filed by plaintiff/appellant against the judgment and decree dated 29.01.2007 passed by learned Addl. District Judge (Fast Track) No.2, Bhilwara in Civil Original Suit No.5/2006 whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff/appellant for recovery of money has been dismissed by learned trial Court. 2. Briefly stated the facts giving rise to the instant appeal are that the plaintiff/appellant filed a suit for recovery of money against the defendant/respondent inter alia alleging that loan granted to one M/s. Vinus Engineering by defendant/respondent Bank was outstanding and as such building and industrial land of the said firm was sought to be auctioned for recovery of the said outstanding loan amount. Therefore, an advertisement for auction was published in the newspaper on 04.01.2003 without mentioning the conditions. The plaintiff/appellant participated in the said auction proceedings and his bid of Rs.19,05,000/- was found to be highest and he deposited 25% of the amount with the defendant bank and on deposit of the balance amount, the sale confirmation letter was to be issued by the defendant Bank and the same was to be got registered. On 25.1.2003, the defendant/ respondent Bank wrote a letter to the plaintiff/appellant and demanded the balance amount along with 2.5% of the auction amount as transfer fee in advance whereas the said condition of depositing transfer fee @ 2.5% of the auction amount was not mentioned earlier. In these compelling circumstances, the plaintiff/appellant deposited a sum of Rs. 47,625/- on 21.02.2003. Thereafter, sale confirmation certificate was issued to the plaintiff/appellant but the amount of Rs.47,625/- was not refunded to him. The plaintiff/appellant submitted an application in this respect and also sent a notice. The plaintiff has also submitted an application before the District Consumer Forum where he was advised to approach before competent trial Court. The plaintiff, thus, claimed total amount of Rs.63,851/-, out of which Rs.47,625/- towards principal amount, Rs.16,185/- towards interest and Rs.41/- as publication charges of information letter and prayed for passing the decree in his favour. 3. The defendant/respondent Bank submitted the written statement and contended that the Court has no jurisdiction to hear and decide the suit. The defendant/respondent admitted the fact of auction and mentioned that for obtaining detailed information about the auction, Telephone No.220090 was provided in the advertisement. 3. The defendant/respondent Bank submitted the written statement and contended that the Court has no jurisdiction to hear and decide the suit. The defendant/respondent admitted the fact of auction and mentioned that for obtaining detailed information about the auction, Telephone No.220090 was provided in the advertisement. It was contended in the written statement that all the conditions were made known to the plaintiff and only thereafter, he participated in the auction proceedings. The plaintiff was never assured that after confirmation of sale, the amount would be refunded to him. It was further contended that plaintiff/appellant approached before the District Consumer Forum where he was advised to file suit before the competent trial Court and/or to initiate proceedings before the Registrar, Cooperative Societies. Thus, the plaintiff was required to initiate proceedings before the Registrar, Cooperative Societies and hence, it was prayed that the plaintiff is not entitled to claim any amount and the suit filed by him is liable to be rejected. 4. On the basis of the above pleadings, the trial Court has framed as many as five issues as mentioned below : ^^1- vk;k oknh us uhykeh ds laca/k esa lekpkj i= esa izdkf'kr lekpkj ij gh fo'okl djrs gq, uhykeh esa Hkkx fy;k ,oa mldh cksyh vf/kdre :0 19]05]000@& esa NwVh\ 2- vk;k oknksRrj ds iSjk la0 2 esa of.kZr vuqlkj oknh us :0 37]625@& etcwju izfroknh ds ;gka tek djk;s tks izfroknh }kjk foØ; iqf"V izek.k i= tkjh gksus ds ckn iqu% ykSVkuh Fkh\ 3- vk;k oknh :0 47]625@& ij 12 izfr'kr okf"kZd nj ls :0 16]185@& o Vad.k iath;u 'kqYd :0 41@& dqy :0 63]851@& izfroknh ls izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh gS\ 4- vk;k izfroknh ds fo:) okn bl U;k;ky; ds vf/kdkj {ks= dk ugha gS\ 5- vuqrks"k\** 5. During trial, the plaintiff/appellant was examined as PW-1 and got 8 documents exhibited as Ex.1 to 8. Defendant/respondent produced Khyalilal Jagetia as DW/1 and Om Prakash Purohit as DW/2 in its defence. 6. The learned trial Court after hearing both the parties and considering the oral as well as documentary evidence available on record decided the suit vide judgment and decree dated 29.01.2007 against the plaintiff/appellant. 7. Issue No.1 with regard to participation of the plaintiff/appellant in the auction proceedings was decided in favour of the plaintiff/appellant. 8. 6. The learned trial Court after hearing both the parties and considering the oral as well as documentary evidence available on record decided the suit vide judgment and decree dated 29.01.2007 against the plaintiff/appellant. 7. Issue No.1 with regard to participation of the plaintiff/appellant in the auction proceedings was decided in favour of the plaintiff/appellant. 8. As regards Issue No.2, learned trial Court came to the conclusion that no objection was raised by the plaintiff as against the demand raised by the respondent/defendant vide communication dated 25.1.2003 and the amount was deposited by him willingly on 21.2.2003 and thereafter, sale confirmation certificate was issued in favour of the plaintiff/appellant. Further, it was held that as per Rule 94 of the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Rules, 2003 and the notification dated 23.4.1971, the amount of Rs.47,625/- recovered from the plaintiff/appellant towards the sale confirmation certificate is not illegal and the said amount was deposited by the plaintiff/appellant willingly and not under any compulsion and hence, the plaintiff/appellant is not entitled to get the refund of the said amount and as such, Issue No.2 was decided against the plaintiff/appellant. Accordingly, issue No.3, pertaining to refund of the said amount and interest etc. was also decided as against the plaintiff/appellant. 9. As regards Issue No.4, relating to jurisdiction of the Court, the trial Court came to the conclusion that civil court has jurisdiction and the same was not barred by Section 58 of the Cooperative Societies Act, 2001 and thus, the said issue was decided against the defendant/respondent. Accordingly, the suit filed by the plaintiff/appellant was dismissed by trial Court. 10. The plaintiff/appellant has assailed the validity of this judgment. 11. During arguments, learned counsel for the appellant has contended that in the notification issued for auction of the property, no condition for levying the amount @ 2.5% as transfer charges was specified. The said amount was demanded from him prior to issuance of the confirmation of the sale certificate and thus, the appellant was compelled to deposit it. That time also, it was promised that the said amount will be refunded after issuing the confirmation of the sale certificate. So, the said amount was deposited by the appellant under protest. When the amount was not refunded as promised, the appellant sent legal notice and thereafter filed the suit for recovery of the said amount. 12. That time also, it was promised that the said amount will be refunded after issuing the confirmation of the sale certificate. So, the said amount was deposited by the appellant under protest. When the amount was not refunded as promised, the appellant sent legal notice and thereafter filed the suit for recovery of the said amount. 12. Referring to the notification dated 23.4.1971 issued by the Cooperative Department, Government of Rajasthan and also the provisions contained in Rule 94 (11) (g) of the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Rules, 2003, learned counsel has contended that the said amount was not leviable from him as the auction sale was not made in pursuance of the award, decree or other decision. Learned trial Court has not paid attention of this aspect and issues No.2 and 3 have wrongly been decided by it against the appellant. He prayed that the impugned judgment and decree be set aside. 13. Learned counsel for the respondent has refuted these arguments mentioning that the notification regarding auction sale published in the newspaper was brief wherein telephone numbers of Managing Director and Sale Officer were given for getting the detailed information of applicable terms and conditions. The said terms and conditions were clearly explained to all the persons including the plaintiff/appellant, who were willing to participate in the auction sale. He has referred to the facts admitted by plaintiff in his cross-examination as also the statements of DW-1 Khyalilal Jagetia, Manager, Cooperative Bank and DW-2 Om Prakash Purohit, retired Manager, who have specifically narrated that the condition of levying the amount @ 2.5% was very well explained to the plaintiff prior to participating in the auction sale and thereafter, he deposited the said amount of Rs.47,625/-. 14. Learned counsel has also argued that no proof has been furnished on behalf of the plaintiff/appellant that the said amount was deposited by him under protest and on the promise that the same will be refunded to him. He contended that after getting the confirmation of the sale certificate issued, the plaintiff has raised this plea at a very belated stage as an after-thought. The amount was deposited by the plaintiff on 21.2.2003 and after almost four and half months, he demanded for refund of the money vide letter dated 1.7.2003 (Ex.3). He contended that after getting the confirmation of the sale certificate issued, the plaintiff has raised this plea at a very belated stage as an after-thought. The amount was deposited by the plaintiff on 21.2.2003 and after almost four and half months, he demanded for refund of the money vide letter dated 1.7.2003 (Ex.3). He has also contended that the notification dated 23.4.1971 and the provisions contained in Rule 94 (11) (g) & (h) of the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Rules, 2003 are very much applicable in this case. He, thus, prayed that the appeal may kindly be dismissed. 15. Learned trial Court has decided the issues No.1 and 4 in favour of the plaintiff/appellant and issues No.2 and 3 have been decided against him. Hence, the analysis and conclusion arrived at by learned trial Court with regard to these issues No.2 and 3 are to be examined in this appeal. 16. On perusal of the notification published in the newspaper (Ex.1), it is clear that only brief information regarding auction sale was published by way of this notification. It was specifically mentioned therein that for the detailed information, please contact the Managing Director and Sale Officer, whose names and telephone numbers were also mentioned therein. Further, a part of cross-examination of plaintiff Tejmal is also worth consideration in this respect wherein he has admitted that he enquired about the details of the auction from the Bank Manager as to how much expenses will have to be incurred in the auction, where the land is situated and what will be the procedure of the auction sale etc. He has further mentioned that he was fully satisfied about the information given by the Bank Officer and then, he participated in the auction sale. The statements of DW-1 Khayalilal Jagetia and DW-2 Om Prakash Purohit also narrate the same facts as have been admitted by the plaintiff/appellant in his cross examination. Thus, there is no doubt that all the terms and conditions were clearly explained and after being satisfied about them, the plaintiff participated in the auction sale. Learned trial Court has also referred to these facts during the discussions made by it while deciding the issues No.2 and 3. Thus, it cannot be argued now that the terms and conditions of the auction were not in the knowledge of the plaintiff/appellant 17. Learned trial Court has also referred to these facts during the discussions made by it while deciding the issues No.2 and 3. Thus, it cannot be argued now that the terms and conditions of the auction were not in the knowledge of the plaintiff/appellant 17. The next plea taken by learned counsel for the appellant is that the amount of Rs.47,625/- was deposited by the appellant on the promise that the said amount was refunded to him after issuance of the confirmation of sale certificate. In this regard, PW-1 Tejmal has stated during his cross-examination that the promise was orally made by Dy. Manager, but the name of the said Dy. Manager has not been stated by him. More over, any such promise unless made by some written official communication cannot be relief upon. Thus, this appears to be a vague plea, without satisfactory details and hence is not liable to be relied. On the contrary, DW-1 Khayalilal and DW-2 Om Prakash Purohit have denied to have made any such promise. Thus, in the absence of any written promise, this pleas has been rightly disbelieved by the trial Court and no infirmity is found in the conclusion so arrived. 18. Learned counsel for the appellant has also raised the doubt whether the amount was at all leviable in terms of the relevant rules. He has contended that the notification dated 23.4.1971 mentions the auction fees leviable @ 1% and confirmation of sale fee @ 2% whereas the amount was charged from him was @ 2.5%. He has also stated that Rule 94 (11) (g) of the Rules of 2003 is applicable only in case of the sale pursuant to execution of awards, decrees etc. On considering the facts in this respect, it comes out that in para-1 of the plaint itself, the plaintiff/appellant has mentioned that against M/s. Venue Engineer Corporation, some amount was outstanding towards the defendant Central Cooperative Bank, for realization of which, the auction notice of industrial plot and the building was published in newspaper dated 4.1.2003. It is, thus, clear that the said auction was made for recovery of the due amount. In this light, the provisions of Rule 94 (11) as also Rule 93 of the Rules of 2003 are relevant. It is, thus, clear that the said auction was made for recovery of the due amount. In this light, the provisions of Rule 94 (11) as also Rule 93 of the Rules of 2003 are relevant. As per Rule 94, besides the decree holder any other person specially authorised by the Registrar is also entitled to apply to the recovery officer within whose jurisdiction the property of the defaulter is situated. Under Rule 94 of the Rules of 2003, a complete procedure has been laid down under which the moveable and immoveable property will be sold for realization of the due amount. Sub-clause (g) and (h) of Sub-rule (11) of the said rule are relevant in this behalf by which it is laid down that besides the purchase price, the amount required for stamps for sale certificate shall have to be paid within 15 days from the date of sale. As per Rule 93 of the Rules of 2003 interalia, the provisions of Rule 94 (11) (g) and (h) shall mutatis mutandis apply to the sale of the property under Chapter XII of the Act. Notification dated 23.4.1971 has been issued to make the rates of the fees leviable in this regard uniform prevailing differently in various districts of the State. When this notification is read with the relevant provisions of the above said rules, it becomes evident that the officers of the respondent Bank asked the appellant to deposit the fees for confirmation of the sale certificate. It has also come in defendant's evidence that the terms and conditions regarding levy of such fees had already been explained to the plaintiff/appellant before he participated in the auction sale. These facts have also been discussed by the learned trial Court in the impugned judgment. In the light of the evidence available on record and the provisions of the Rules mentioned herein above, the judgment passed by the learned trial Court appears to be justified and no interference is called for in the same. 19. As regards Issue No.3, which is about the entitlement of the plaintiff/appellant to get the refund of Rs.47,625/- deposited by him as also the other expenses, the decision of this issue basically hinges upon the decision of issue No.2, which has not been decided in favour of the plaintiff/appellant. 19. As regards Issue No.3, which is about the entitlement of the plaintiff/appellant to get the refund of Rs.47,625/- deposited by him as also the other expenses, the decision of this issue basically hinges upon the decision of issue No.2, which has not been decided in favour of the plaintiff/appellant. As per the discussions made herein above, the conclusion arrived at by the learned trial Court as regards the issue No.2 appears to be perfectly justified. Resultantly, appellant does not appear to be entitled to get back the amount claimed by him. Thus, issue No.3 decided by the learned trial Court against the plaintiff/appellant also appears to be justified. 20. In the result, there is no substance in this appeal and the same is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.