##PAGE1##

$~33

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ EX.P. 68/2024 & EX.APPL.(OS) 715/2025, EX.APPL.(OS)

1775/2025

SOM BALA @ SUMAN KHANDELWAL .....Decree Holder

Through: Mr. Mohit Aggarwal, Ms. Pooja

Saini, Mr. Deepak Singh Poonia and

Mr. Harshit Saini, Advs.

versus

PYARE LAL GUPTA & ORS. .....Judgement Debtors

Through: Mr. Amit Malik, Ms. Monika Saini,

Mr. Geetansh Nagpal and Ms. Japneet

Kaur, Advs. For J-2 & 3

Mr. Krishan Kumar, Mr. K. K.

Nangia and Mr. Anubhav Kumar,

Advs. For JD-4

Mr. Naman S. and Mr. Chirantan

Saha, Advocates for Sole Bidder.

Ms. Nidhi Mohan Parashar, Local

Commissioner.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT BANSAL

O R D E R

% 23.12.2025

EX.APPL.(OS) 1775/2025

1. This application has been filed on behalf of Mr. Dharmatma

Sharma/applicant, who was the sole-bidder in the 3^rd e-auction carried out by

the Local Commissioner on 16^th October, 2025.

2. In the order passed by this Court on 31^st October, 2025, it was noted

that the said sole bidder has deposited a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/- towards the

EX.P.68/2024 Page1of

This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 19/01/2026 at 22:03:39

earnest money. Further the submission of the counsel for the sole bidder was

noted that he would require time till 10^th November, 2025 to pay 25% of the

bid amount. Accordingly, he was directed to deposit 25% of the bid amount,

i.e. Rs. 2 crores on or before 10^th November, 2025.

3. When the matter came up on 12^th November, 2025, counsel for the

sole bidder, on instructions from the sole bidder who was present in-person

before the Court, sought three weeks’ further time to deposit the sum of Rs.

2 crores. The Court granted time of three weeks to him to deposit the sum of

Rs. 2 crores. A direction was also given to the bidder to file an undertaking

by way of an affidavit. Paragraph 2 and 3 of the said order set out below:-

“2. In view of the above, three (3) weeks' further time is granted to the

bidder to pay the aforesaid amount of Rs. 2,00,00,000/- along with

interest as statedabove.

3. An undertaking by way of affidavit shall be filed on behalf of the

bidder that he shall pay the aforesaid amount along with interest on

or before 3^rd December, 2025 and in the event the aforesaid amount is

not paid within three weeks from today, he would have no objection if

thesumof Rs.10,00,000/-paidas anearnest moneyis forfeited.”

4. Pursuant to the said order, an affidavit of undertaking has been filed

on behalf of the successful bidder.

5. Though the undertaking is lying under objection, the Court

Commissioner submits that a copy of the undertaking has been supplied to

her which unequivocally states that the applicant would have no objection if

the earnest money of Rs.10,00,000/- is forfeited upon the failure of the

applicant to deposit the sum of Rs. 2 crores within the time given.

6. Admittedly the sole bidder failed to deposit the sum of Rs. 2 crores

within the time granted. Accordingly, in terms of the undertaking given by

the sole bidder, the earnest money is liable to be forfeited.

EX.P.68/2024 Page2of

This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 19/01/2026 at 22:03:39

7. Counsel for the sole bidder submits that subsequently, it came to his

notice that there is Mazaar in the suit premises. Hence, the earnest money

should not be forfeited.

8. Counsel appearing for the parties as well as the Local Commissioner

dispute the aforesaid fact and submit that there is no Mazaar at the suit

premises.

9. In any event, it was for the sole bidder to properly inspect the suit

property before making a bid.

10. The Local Commissioner has relied upon the judgment of the

Supreme Court in Aggarwal Associates (Promoters) Limited v. Delhi

Development Authority, (2010) 15 SCC 380, to submit that since th