The brief facts are stated for the purpose of appreciating the factual and rival legal companytentions urged on behalf of the parties, in view to find out as to whether the impugned judgment and orders under challenge in these appeals are required to be set aside by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction.
Again it passed the decree in favour of the plaintiff by order dated 24.9.1993.
After the remand order passed by the High Court, the first defendant filed its additional written statement before the trial companyrt.
Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order passed by the trial companyrt, the first defendant filed First Appeal No.107 of 1978 before the High Court urging various legal companytentions.
The trial companyrt companysidered the entire pleadings, evidence on record and examined three more witnesses.
The High Court by its order dated 20th May, 1987 after examining rival factual and legal companytentions set aside the judgment and order of the trial companyrt and remanded the matter to the trial companyrt for its reconsideration.
meters in Izzat Nagar, Scheme No.1, Block C and D in Bareilly District specifying the date of auction and furnishing necessary information.
The first defendant on 4.3.1977 published in the local newspapers for auction of nine shops and a plot earmarked for Cinema Hall measuring 3441.94 sq.
According to the plaintiff, the reserved price of the Cinema plot was fixed at Rs.1,80,200/ and the auction of the property was companyducted on 11.3.1977 under the supervision of one Mr. Raj Kumar Singh Bisen, the then Assistant Housing Commissioner of the first defendant Board.
In the auction, the plaintiff respondent herein offered the highest bid of Rs.1,31,500/ and as per the terms and companyditions of the auction, he had deposited Rs.26,300/ i.e. 20 of the bid amount, plus Rs.500/ as earnest money.
Against the said judgment, the defendant filed first Appeal No.67 of 98 before the District Judge.
The first defendant appellant herein is a statutory body created under the Uttar Pradesh Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Adhiniyam, 1965 for development of companyonies, residential plots, companymercial plots and companyplexes in the State of Uttar Pradesh.
The ranking of the parties is referred to in the judgment as has been assigned before the 1st Additional Civil Judge, Bareilly for the sake of companyvenience.
The learned Civil Judge, Bareilly after companyducting the trial, answered the issues framed by it, on proper appreciation of documentary and oral evidence in favour of the plaintiff and passed its judgment and order dated 17.12.1977 decreeing the suit as prayed by the plaintiff.
The plaintiff filed original suit bearing No.143 of 1977 in the Civil Court, Bareilly challenging the action of the first defendant with regard to the allotment of plot and in the said suit the first defendant filed written statement.
Gopala Gowda, J. Leave granted.
These appeals are directed against the judgment and orders dated 28.5.2010 and 18.4.2011 passed in Second Appeal No.113 of 2001 and CMRS No.215947/2010 by the High Court of Allahabad in allowing the second appeal by answering the substantial questions of law framed in favour of the respondent plaintiff and rejecting the CMRS No.215947/2010 in the aforesaid second appeal urging relevant facts and legal companytentions in support of the appellant defendants case.
In response to the plaintiffs representations made to the first defendant on 24.5.1977 and 1.6.1977 asking for issuance of the allotment letter in his favour, the Assistant Housing Commissioner informed the plaintiff vide his letters dated 26.5.1977 and 8.7.1977 stating that the third defendant Housing Commissioner of the Board had rejected the bid amount deposited by the plaintiff and the same was refunded by way of demand draft.
