TIME PROPERTIES AND PROMOTERS Vs. DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short the Code) is directed against the judgement and order dated 21st February, 1984 requiring the petitioner to pay ad valorem court fee on the plaint. Briefly these are the facts. On 12th November, 1982 the petitioner-plaintiff made a bid of Rs. 24,95,000.00 for acquiring commercial Plot No. 5, measuring 243 sq. meters in the Community Centre, Wazirpur Industrial Area, Delhi at a public auction held by the Delhi Development Authority, defendant respondent and he was declared to be tha highest bidder. He paid a sum of Rs. 6.50,0001- as earnest money by cheques which were encashed. The defendant by letter dated 24th March, 1983 accepted the bid of the plaintiff and required him to pay the balance amount of Rs. 18,45,050.00 within 45 days thereafter. The plaintiff by letter dated 7th May, 1983 requested the defendant to grant extension of time for a period of three months. By letter dated 12th June, 1983 the defendant extended the time for payment upto 4th August, 1983. On 15th July, 1983 the plaintiff while cknowledging the defendant's letter dated 29th June, 1983 wrote to it that there exisied a municipal primary school on the plot in question and there were remote chances of physical possession being delivered to him just after making full payment The defendant was also informed that the petitioner after taking possession of the plot intended to start the construction of complex without any loss of time. The petitioner required the defendant to inform him that the possession would be delivered to him as soon as the payment was made. It appears that the defendant did not send any reply.

(2.) On 3rd August, 1983 the petitioner filed the present suit fixing the value of the suit for purposes of court fee and jurisdiction at Rs. 1301- and paid court fee of Rs. 131-. The plaintiff has prayed that the defendant be restrained by a decree of perpetual injunction from demanding or claiming interest on the so' called belated payment, cancelling the bid made in respect of the plot in question on 12th November, 1982 forfeiting the earnest money deposited by him and re- auctioning the plot. The defendant resisted the suit and amongst various other pleas it was pleaded in the written statement that the suit was not property valued for purposes of court fee and jurisdiction and that proper court fee had not been paid. The trial court by the impugned order held that the plaintiff wanted to avoid his liability under the contract and an injunction restraining defendant from forfeiting the sum of Rs. 6.50,0001- paid as earnest money and further restraining the form re-auctioning the plot. The trial court concluded that substantial relief in the plain was seeking relief from forfeiture of the earnest money of Rs. 6,50,000.00 and as such the plaintiff was liable to pay ad valorem court fee.

(3.) Learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that in short the suit is purely for the relief of injunction restraining the defendant from revoking the bid accepted by it and nothing more. His submission is that the petitioner has always been prepared to pay the balance about of the auction bid but he apprehends that after payment of balance as demanded he would not be delivered possession of the plot as the same has been in possession of the M.C.D. who is even now running a school on the plot. In the written statement it is admitted that there is temporary encroachment on the plot in question but it does not amount to any hindrance as alleged by the plaintiff. The fact remains that the encroachment by the Municipal Corporation of Delhi on the plot in question is still in existence although the auction had taken place in 1982. Term No. 7 and the terms and conditions regarding auction of plot in question reads as under :