IA No.13157/2016 (of the plaintiff under Order XV Rule 3(1) read with Order XII Rule 6 CPC)

1. The plaintiff, in this suit for recovery of Rs.11,62,45,657/- with interest from the defendant Delhi Development Authority (DDA), after the framing of the issues and during the course of recording of evidence, has applied for judgment forthwith.

2. The application came up before this Court first on 24th November, 2016 when notice thereof was ordered to be issued. The plaintiff filed another application being IA No.15697/2016 seeking deferment of the recording of evidence in the suit till the decision of this application. IA No.15697/2016 came up before this Court on 19th December, 2016, when it was the contention of the counsel for the defendant DDA that the plaintiff, inspite of repeated opportunities had failed to lead evidence and the plaintiff, being unable to lead evidence, had filed IA No.15697/2016. In the face of such contention, the recording of evidence as scheduled was not deferred as sought by the plaintiff. No reply to the application has been filed by the defendant DDA despite opportunity. The senior counsel for the plaintiff and the counsel for the defendant DDA were heard on 2nd May, 2017 and judgment reserved.

3. The plaintiff, on 21st December, 2010, instituted this suit pleading:

(i) That the defendant DDA floated tenders for sale of a plot ad-measuring 18070 sq. mtrs. for construction of a five star hotel at Netaji Subhash Place, opposite Wazirpur Depot near Pitampura, Delhi.

(ii) That the bid of the plaintiff of Rs.15.62 crores was accepted and allotment letter dated 14th December, 1994 issued by the defendant DDA in favour of the plaintiff.

(iii) That the plaintiff paid a sum of Rs.3.91 crores at the time of the bid, which was treated as the first installment; the second installment of Rs.3,90,50,500/- was deposited on 13th March, 1995 and representations were made for extension of time to pay the balance amount of Rs.781 lacs.

(iv) That the defendant DDA refused to grant extension and vide letter dated 8th June, 1995 threatened that if the balance payment is not made by 12th June, 1995, the amount already paid would stand forfeited.

(v) W.P.(C) No.2253/1995 was filed by the plaintiff and during the pendency whereof the plaintiff deposited Rs.100 lacs on 22nd June, 1995 and another Rs.100 lacs on 3rd August, 1995, leaving the balance amount payable at Rs.581 lacs.

(vi) W.P.(C) No.2253/1995 was disposed of vide order dated 14th February, 1996 giving liberty to the plaintiff to represent to the Central Government and directing the Central Government to decide the said representation within four weeks of receipt thereof.

(vii) That the representations so made by the plaintiff were rejected vide letter dated 17th July, 1996.

(viii) That the defendant DDA vide letter dated 13th August, 1996 conveyed to the plaintiff that the allotment was cancelled and the earnest money of Rs.3.91 crores forfeited.

(ix) Aggrieved therefrom, the plaintiff filed W.P.(C) No.3185/1996 which was dismissed on 9th September, 1996, observing that so far as forfeiture of earnest money is concerned, the plaintiff would be at liberty to challenge the same before a competent forum.

(x) That the defendant DDA, under cover of its letter dated 4th October, 1996, refunded a sum of Rs.4,90,50,050/- and under cover of another letter dated 25th October, 1996 refunded the sum of Rs.100 lacs.

(xi) That another representation dated 19th June, 1998 was made by the plaintiff to the Union Minister of Urban Affairs & Employment and the Union Minister of Urban Affairs & Employment passed an order of restoration of allotment and directing the plaintiff to deposit the balance amount along with 12% interest per annum.

(xii) That the plaintiff, vide its letter dated 13th April, 1999 wrote for issuance of the necessary letter for making payment of the balance amount along with interest.

(xiii) That in the meantime, the Hon‘ble Minister for Urban Development relinquished