HIMA KOHLI, J.

I.A. 24684/2014 (by D-1/DDA under Order VII Rule 11 CPC)

1. The present application has been filed by the defendant No.1/DDA praying inter alia that the suit instituted by the plaintiff/ company for recovery of a sum of Rs.46,85,671/- towards interest on the principal amount of Rs.63,12,500/- retained by the DDA between 07.12.2008 till 29.01.2013, alongwith future interest @18% per annum thereon, is liable to be rejected, being barred under Section 53B of the Delhi Development Act, 1957 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’).

2. The relevant facts for determining the controversy raised in the present application are that in the year 2008, the defendant No.1/DDA had issued an advertisement for auctioning a plot bearing No.4, near plot No.A-373, Defence Colony, New Delhi, measuring 91 sq. meters. The plaintiff/company had participated in the auction held for the subject plot on 17.12.2008. The reserve price of the subject plot was fixed by the defendant no. 1/DDA as Rs.1,29,90,614/-. The plaintiff/company was declared as the highest bidder at Rs.2,52,50,000/, whereafter between the period 07.12.2008 to 17.12.2008, it had deposited a sum of Rs.63,12,500/- with the defendant No.1/DDA towards the earnest money.

3. Early in the year 2009, one Shri Rajesh Kumar Sethi and some other residents of Defence Colony had filed a writ petition, registered as W.P.(C) 123/2009, challenging the action of the defendant No.1/DDA of auctioning the subject plot on the ground that in the event construction activities are undertaken on the said plot, the width of the surrounding road would be narrowed down and the access of the petitioners to air and light in the adjoining properties would be impeded. Initially, the defendant No.1/DDA had filed a counter affidavit in opposition to the aforesaid petition, but later on it had agreed to cancel the auction of the subject plot. Pertinently, the plaintiff/company had filed an application for impleadment in the aforesaid writ petition and vide order dated 15.03.2011, it was impleaded as respondent No.4. During the pendency of the aforesaid petition, the plaintiff/company claims to have made repeated representations to the defendant No.1/DDA for early culmination of the auction vide letters dated 14.02.2008, 18.12.2008, 22.12.2008, 29.12.2008, 25.02.2009, 27.08.2009 and 07.08.2010. Finally, vide order dated 26.04.2012 passed in the captioned petition, having regard to the additional affidavit filed by the DDA, the relief prayed for by the petitioners therein and on the DDA’s counsel conveying to the Court that steps were being taken to cancel the auction of the subject plot, the writ petition was disposed of while granting eight week’s time to the DDA to take steps for cancellation of the plot.

4. After passage of four years and four months from the date of deposit of the earnest money, the defendant No.1/DDA returned the principal amount of Rs.63,12,500/- to the plaintiff on 29.01.2013. Aggrieved by the action of the defendant No.1/DDA in failing to return the principal amount to the plaintiff/company alongwith interest for the period w.e.f. 17.12.2008 to 29.01.2013, in July, 2013, the plaintiff/company had filed an interim application in the aforecited writ petition (CM APPL. 10781/2013). However, vide order dated 29.07.2013, the said application was withdrawn by the plaintiff/company with liberty to file appropriate proceedings against the DDA in accordance with law. Thereafter, in August, 2013, the plaintiff/company had filed a separate petition, registered as W.P.(C) 5483/2013, praying inter alia for directions to the DDA to pay interest @18% per annum on the principal amount of Rs.63,12,500/- w.e.f. 17.12.2008 to 29.01.2013. Vide order dated 10.09.2013, the said writ petition was dismissed by the High Court by relying on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Suganmal vs.