1. The plaintiff has filed this suit for recovery of Rs. 60,79,875/- along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the date of realization. A brief summary of the facts leading to the instant suit is as follows:

2. Delhi Development Authority (DDA), the defendant, held a public auction on March 12, 1982, for sale of a commercial plot admeasuring 351 sq. yds at No. 9, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi (suit property). Rama Associates, the plaintiff participated in the auction and being the highest bidder at Rs. 186 lakhs, its bid was accepted on March 20, 1982.In accordance with the Terms and Conditions of the auction (contract), the plaintiff deposited a sum of Rs. 46.50 lakhs, being 25% of the total bid amount. However, disputes arose between the parties and the plaintiff cancelled the contract, seeking return of the sum of Rs. 46.50 lakhs. However, the defendant has appropriated the said sum on the ground that the plaintiff failed to comply with the terms within the stipulated time.

3. The plaintiff’s case is as follows:

4. The plaintiff submits that it is a private limited company, and that M/s. Essel Properties and Industries is its unit. The plaintiff was declared as the highest bidder at Rs. 186 lakhs, and it deposited a sum of Rs. 46.50 lakhs, being the 25% of the bid amount. The plaintiff claims that a copy of the Architectural Control Drawings (AC drawings) was to be supplied to the successful bidder, keeping in mind that the successful bidders were to enter into transactions with prospective buyers to sell the property acquired through the auction. However, the plaintiff alleges that at the time of bid, the AC drawings were not exhibited or shown, but instead, there was a declaration by the defendant at the time of auction that the permissible floor area of the four storey building shall be 400%.

5. The plaintiff submits that the defendant failed to supply the said AC drawings even after the auction despite repeated requests, which were eventually supplied only on October 15, 1982, after seven months from the date of auction. The plaintiff submits that the delay in supplying the AC drawings greatly prejudiced and jeopardized the interests of the plaintiff as they could not negotiate with prospective purchasers of the proposed commercial flats, in order to finance the balance amount payable to the defendants. The plaintiff further submits that even the AC drawings were not prepared in accordance with the building bye-laws, framed by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi, which meant that the property was not auctionable for commercial buildings/office space since the space could only be utilized for common path/passage and/or parking etc.

6. The plaintiff also contends that the auction by the defendant was contrary to the terms and conditions of the Master Plan for Delhi, in that, the plots auctioned fall under ‘main street’. And that when the local inhabitants learnt about the auction, they protested by agitation/dharna and also instituted various legal actions before different Civic Authorities, which also hindered the negotiation talks of the plaintiff with prospective purchasers. And that the plaintiff wrote two letters, dated April 14, 1982 and April 22, 1982 informing the defendant about the agitation and that many people were claiming common rights in the said plot. And that articles appeared in various newspapers alleging the auction to be illegal. As all these created serious impediments in the plaintiff’s negotiations, it, vide letter dated May 14, 1982 requested the defendant for extension of time to make balance payment by three months. And that vide letter dated August 20, 1982, the defendant issued a Notice to the plaintiff stating that if they did not deposit the balance amount by August 29, 1982 along with interest at the rate of 36%, the earnest money would stand forfeited.

7. Plaintiff submits that on August 25, 1982, it wrote to the defendants that the auct