Honble KOCHHAR, J. - This appeal section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure is directed against the judgment and decree dated 30-5-1992 passed by the learned Additional District Judge No. 2, Jaipur City, Jaipur decreeing the suit of the plaintiff respondent. The case of the plaintiff — respondent in the suit filed on 12-5-1986 was as under:-

(2). On 25-9-1980, the Urban Improvement Trust (UIT) the predecessor-in-interest of the defendant-appellant Jaipur Development Authority (JDA), had offerred to sell by auction shop plot No. C- 30, Lal Kothi Shopping Centre Scheme, Jaipur. According to the terms of the auction, the highest bidder was to pay 25% of the bid amount at the spot and the remaining amount was to be paid within 30 days of the receipt of the letter confirming the acceptance of the bid by the appropriate authority. The plaintiff respondent was the highest bidder at the rate of Rs. 975/- per square meter and he deposited Rs. 13, 173/- as l/4th amount of the bid, against receipt. No information regarding confirmation of the acceptance of the bid was sent to the plaintiff-respondent, who wrote letters to the UIT dated 23-1-1981,28-11-1981,17-2-1982 and 26-5-1982, but no reply to the said letters was received by the plaintiff. The defendant appellant-Jaipur Development Authority was constituted on 11-10- 1982 and the plaintiff-respondent sent letters dated 8-12-1982 and 3-1-1983 to the defendant appellant, but since no reply was received from the defendant-appellant the plaintiffs son Om Prakash Verma met Shri TS Rajpurohit, the Secretary of the defendant appellant on 14-2-1983 and also delivered to him the letters of the said date in which new address of the plaintiff- respondent had also been mentioned; but Shri Rajpurohit told him that the file was not traceable and asked the plaintiffs son to make enquiry after 8-10 days and, thereupon, on 23-2-1983, the plaintiffs son again went and delivered another letter to the Secretary, who told him that the information regarding acceptance of the bid would be received by the plaintiff within 5-7 days thereof. On 31-3-1983, the plaintiff received from the defendant letter dated 26-3-1983 stating that since the plaintiff had failed to, deposit the 3/4th amount the bid had been cancelled and l/4th bid amount had been forfeited. The plaintiff pleaded that no information had been ever received by him from the defendant-appellant in spite of the plaintiff making enquiries about the confirmation of the bid and that he had always been ready and willing to deposit the remaining 3/4th amount and to perform his part of the contract. He, therefore, prayed that a decree for specific performance for sale of the property in dispute be passed in his favour and against the defendant.

(3). The suit was contested by the defendant-appellant. In the written statement the defendant-appellant pleaded that the information regarding acceptance of the bid was sent to the plaintiff on 28- 10-1980 and thereafter by registered post/Ad on 2-12-1980, but the plaintiff respondent had failed to deposit the remaining 3/4th amount and that vide letter dated 26-3-1983 the defendant had informed the plaintiff that on his failure to deposit the remaining amount the bid had been cancelled and l/4th amount deposited by him had been forfeited. The suit was also contested on the ground that no contract had come into existence between the parties and that the suit was barred in view of section 99 of the Jaipur Development Authority Act. It was also pleaded that the suit was barred by time and that the plaintiff had also filed a suit for injunction against the defendant and had not sought the relief in question in the said suit, as such, the suit was barred under Order 2 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (the Code).

(4). After framing the necessary issues and recording the evidence produced by the parties besides hearing their learned counsel, the learned trial court held that the suit was within time and that it was no

Click Here to Read the rest of this document