- (1.) Present Regular Second Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 02.01.2015 passed by District Judge, Chandigarh whereby judgment and decree dated 9.10.2013 passed by Additional Civil Judge [Senior Division], Chandigarh in Civil Suit No. 48 of 16.1.2013 were set-aside and the suit of the plaintiff [Smt. Manjit Kaur] was dismissed.
(2.) For the sake of convenience, parties are being referred to as per their status before the Court of first Instance.
(3.) Relevant facts of the case for the purpose of decision of this appeal; that plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction on the ground that she had purchased a residential site No. 560, Sector 33-B, Chandigarh in auction sale held by Chandigarh Administration on 11.02.1989. The total price of the plot was Rs.14,15,000/-. As per the requirement, 10% of the price i.e. Rs. 1,41,500/- was deposited by her at the time of auction. In terms of conditions of the auction, 15% of the payment was to be made within 30 days, i.e., upto 11.03.1989 and thereafter allotment letter was to be issued by defendant No.1. However, due to some family problems, the plaintiff could not deposit the balance 15% amount within the stipulated period of thirty days and she finally deposited the amount of Rs. 2,12,250/- [15% of the bid money] vide demand draft No. 174815 dated 15.5.1989 and the same was duly acknowledged by defendant no.1 vide receipt No. 56, book No. 33251 dated 2.6.1989. Despite receipt of 25% of the amount, which was due towards the plaintiff, defendant No.1 failed to issue the allotment letter for want of condonation of delay in making the payment of 15% amount of the premium. Defendant No.1 had recommended the case of the plaintiff for condonation of delay to the Finance Secretary, U.T. Administration, Chandigarh vide letter dated 13.6.1989. Subsequently, defendant No.1 issued a notice dated 20.09.1989 intimating the plaintiff that her request for condonation of delay was not accepted and as such the plaintiff was required to show cause by 24.10.1989 as to why the lease of the said time may not be cancelled and whole part of the premium and ground rent be not forfeited under Rule 12(3) of the Chandigarh Lease Hold of Sites and Building Rules, 1973 [for short, " the 1973 Rules"]. As per the plaintiff, the allotment letter was not issued. However, on receipt of letter dated 20.9.1989, the plaintiff had written a letter dated 24.10.1989 to defendant No.1 for condoning the delay on sympathetic grounds. The said matter was decided by defendant No.1 and vide memo dated 10.9.1990 the delay was condoned in case of other allottees. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed an appeal under Section 10(3) of the Capital of Punjab [Development and Regulation] Act, 1952 [for short, "the Act"]. Defendant No.2 wrongly dismissed the appeal without going into the merits of the case. The revision petition filed by the plaintiff was dismissed vide order dated 6.10.2012 by defendant No.2. Hence, the necessity of suit.;