SHALINI ARORA Vs. SURJIT SINGH & ORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Regular First Appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is filed by the defendant no.2 in the suit impugning the judgment of the trial court dated 13.1.2017 by which the trial court has decreed the suit filed by the plaintiffs/respondent nos. 1 to 6 herein. By the impugned judgment and decree dated 13.1.2017 trial court has held that respondent nos. 1 to 6/plaintiffs are entitled to declaration that the bid of the appellant and respondent no.8/defendant nos. 2 and 3 submitted to the respondent no.7/defendant no.1/Delhi State Industrial Development Corporation (DSIDC) with respect to the question-purchase of the subject property being Shed No. A-13, Industrial Complex, Nangloi, Delhi was liable to be cancelled as it was manipulated/altered after being submitted. It has also been held by the impugned judgment and decree that the respondent nos. 1 to 6/plaintiffs are entitled to mandatory injunction to get the subject property allotted in their name and for receiving possession of the same. By the impugned judgment it has been held that the bid given by the defendant nos. 2 and 3 in the suit viz the appellant/defendant no.2 and respondent no.8/defendant no.3 was a manipulated bid on account of fabrication of the bid and therefore such bid although was the lowest bid, the same has to be rejected, and consequently, the next highest bid of the respondent nos. 1 to 6/plaintiffs has to be accepted.

(2.) The facts of the case are that in January 2004, the respondent no.7/defendant no.1/DSIDC invited tenders for sale of the subject property. The reserved price fixed was Rs.43.50 lacs and earnest amount was fixed at Rs.1 lac. Respondents no.1 to 6/plaintiffs offered a sum of Rs.55 lacs on 29.1.2004 with the requisite bank draft towards earnest money. When the respondent nos. 1 to 6/plaintiffs had submitted their bid, the appellant and respondent no.8/defendant nos.2 and 3 were also present and who were known to the respondent nos. 1 to 6/plaintiffs. As the time for filing the tender was over hence the respondent no.1/plaintiff no.1 revealed his offering price to the respondent no.8/defendant no.3 and whereupon respondent no.8/defendant no.3 went away on pretext of doing some work. At about 4 pm, when the bids were opened it transpired that the tender of the appellant and respondent no.8/defendant nos. 2 and 3 was just Rs.1,000/- more than that of the respondent nos. 1 to 6/plaintiffs i.e the appellant and respondent no.8/defendant nos. 2 and 3 had been successful as their bid was Rs.55,01,000/-. Since the respondent nos. 1 to 6/plaintiffs were of the opinion that the bid of the appellant and respondent no.8/defendant nos. 2 and 3 was manipulated by the appellant and respondent no.8/defendant nos. 2 and 3, after its submission, therefore they filed their objections to the auction sale before the Chairman of the DSIDC. The fact was that the appellant and respondent no.8/defendant nos. 2 and 3 colluded with each other whereby the tender given by the respondent no.8/defendant no.3 was, after its submission, manipulated to include the name of appellant/defendant no.2 as it was agreed between them to the share profits of the successful tender for the subject property. It was pleaded that appellant and respondent no.8/defendant nos. 2 and 3 in connivance with the officials of the DSIDC fraudulently changed the entries in the tender form and vide letter dated 9.2.2004 tender of the appellant and respondent no.8/defendant nos. 2 and 3 was accepted as the highest tender. Appellant and respondent no.8/defendant nos. 2 and 3 deposited Rs.13 lacs on 8.3.2004 with the remaining amount having to be paid within three months. Thereafter, respondent no.7/defendant no.1/DSIDC received the letter from the respondent no.8/defendant no.3 that he was withdrawing his name from the tender and the allotment will made in the sole name of the appellant/defendant no.2, however thereafter respondent no.8/defendant no.3 intimated respondent no.7/defendant no.1/DSIDC that his request for deleting his name be withdrawn and he should be continued as a co-allottee. On 1.4.2004, the appellant/defendant no.2 deposited the balance amount of Rs.41,01,000/-. Respondent nos.1 to 6/plaintiffs wrote to respondent no.7/defendant no.1/DSIDC for cancelling of the tender accepted of the appellant and respondent no.8/defendant nos.2 and 3 and requested that instead of the appellant and respondent no.8/defendant nos.2 and 3, the respondent nos. 1 to 6/plaintiffs be declared as the successful bidders. Having failed in this regard the subject suit was filed. In the meanwhile, disputes and differences arose between the defendant nos. 2 and 3 i.e the appellant and respondent no.8 resulting a writ petition being filed in this Court by the respondent no.8/defendant no.3 and in such writ petition the allotment of the shed was stayed.

(3.) The suit was contested by the appellant/defendant no.2 and the respondent no.8/defendant no.3. They filed separate written statements. Whereas the respondent no.8/defendant no.3 in his written statement admitted that the tender was first solely filled in the name of the respondent no.8/defendant no.3 namely Sh. Kishan Lal and the name of the appellant/defendant no.2/Smt. Shalini Arora was added later on, however, in the written statement filed by the appellant/defendant no.2 it was denied that any changes whatsoever had taken place in the tender form and the tender form was always jointly filled in the names of the appellant and the respondent no.8/defendant nos.2 and 3. It was denied that any manipulation had taken place. It was prayed that the suit be dismissed inasmuch as there was no manipulation or fabrication as alleged by the respondents no. 1 to 6/plaintiffs.