JUDGMENT : Rajiv Sharma, J. 1. This Regular Second Appeal has been instituted against judgment and decree dated 1.3.2008 rendered by the learned District Judge, Shimla in Civil Appeal no. 62-S/13 of 2007. 2. Key facts" necessary for the adjudication of the present appeal are that appellant-plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as 'plaintiff' for convenience sake) filed a suit for recovery of Rs.3,32,417/-, against the respondents-defendants (hereinafter referred to as 'defendants' for convenience sake). Case of the plaintiff is that the defendants issued an auction notice for the car parking-cum-commercial complex on Cart Road, near High Court of HP, Shimla to be held on 9.12.2002, at 11 AM and as per the terms and conditions, bidder was required to pay 20% of the bid amount at the fall of hammer and earnest money of the successful bidder was to be adjusted against the 20% amount and balance was to be paid within 7 days from the issuance of allotment letter or with the interest @ 15% per annum within next 30 days. It is further averred that the defendants constructed three parking floors in the aforesaid building i.e. top floor on the main road (Circular Road) and two floors below the same. According to the plaintiff, he had been assured that at least 80-100 vehicles could be accommodated in the parking lot in the fourth floor and therefore, plaintiff was induced to make a bid for Rs.13.50 Lakh. Parking, for which, plaintiff had made bid was in the fourth floor and two floors above said fourth floor were having greater capacity to accommodate vehicles which were easily accessible from Circular road but this facility was not available for the fourth floor and access to fourth floor was not easy. He was assured that access would be taken care of and before area is handed over for commercial use, same would be made easily accessible and approachable. It is further averred that approach to fourth floor was by taking U turn on circular road which was quite impossible due to congestion on the road. However, despite all these disadvantages, plaintiff made aforesaid bid but subsequently came to know that fifth floor had a greater area and better access which was auctioned only for Rs.9.50 Lakh. It is further averred that approach to fourth floor was by taking U turn on circular road which was quite impossible due to congestion on the road. However, despite all these disadvantages, plaintiff made aforesaid bid but subsequently came to know that fifth floor had a greater area and better access which was auctioned only for Rs.9.50 Lakh. Not only this, fourth floor parking area could accommodate only 40 vehicles and even if said parking area was fully occupied throughout the year, it was not possible to recover the bid amount. Area available for parking was only 920 square metres. Plaintiff was asked to deposit Rs.2,71,000/- However, possession of the parking lot i.e. fourth floor was never given to the plaintiff despite assurances and rather the defendants remained in possession throughout of the said parking area. It is further averred that various representations were made for delivering the possession but in vain. On 13.12.2002, defendants were apprised that the area is being used by them during peak season and parking has not been completed and construction material was lying there. Plaintiff issued a notice on 13.12.2002 to the defendants requesting to reduce the bid money. Vide letters dated 26.12.2002, plaintiff was apprised that bid money can not be reduced and in case he failed to sign papers, earnest money would be forfeited. He was informed vide letter dated 10.9.2003, that as per conditions No. 2 and 14, 20% of the amount i.e. Rs.2,71,000/- has been forfeited. According to the plaintiff, amount of Rs.2,71,000/- was wrongly forfeited since possession was never delivered. 3. Suit was contested by the defendants. Defendants admitted auction notice dated 9.12.2002. Plaintiff was apprised that in the event of highest bidder, failing to deposit the balance amount within 30 days, the bid shall be cancelled and 20% of the bid amount deposited would be forfeited and that the period of payment of the balance amount was not seven days but was four weeks. It is denied that the plaintiff had been assured about particular number of vehicles to be accommodated in the parking lot claiming that plaintiff after visiting the spot had seen space and only thereafter had offered highest bid of Rs.13.55 Lakh and not Rs.13.50 Lakh for the fourth floor. It was averred that fourth floor was accessible from main road like 5th and 6th floor. It was averred that fourth floor was accessible from main road like 5th and 6th floor. It was averred that the plaintiff had inspected the area of 5th and 6th floors and only then had offered bid for 4th floor. Plaintiff was informed vide letter dated 10.9.2003 that an amount of Rs.2,71,000/- has been forfeited as per terms and conditions of the auction notice as he had failed to take possession of car parking and sign the papers. It is further averred that all the representations were replied by them. 4. Replication was filed by the plaintiff. Issues were framed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) on 28.7.2007. He decreed the suit on 31.8.2007. Defendants filed an appeal. Appeal was allowed on 1.3.2008 by the learned District Judge, Shimla. Hence, this Regular Second Appeal. 5. The Regular Second Appeal was admitted on 16.6.2008, on the following substantial question of law: ?whether the learned Appellate Court has totally misread and misconstrued the documents Exts. PW-1/A & PW-1/D?. 6. Mr. Suneel Awasthi, Advocate has supported the judgment and decree dated 31.8.2007 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division). On the other hand, Mr. Hamender Chandel, Advocate, has supported the judgment and decree dated 1.3.2008 passed by the learned District Judge, Shimla. 7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the record carefully. 8. Plaintiff has appeared as PW-1. According to him, auction was held on 9.12.2002 for the car parking on fourth floor. He had deposited Rs.2.00 lakh before the auction vide Ext. PW-1/B. He had been made to understand that 100 vehicles could be accommodated in each floor. He had made bid for Rs.13.50 Lakh as per Ext. PW-1/A. Fifth and sixth floors had been auctioned for Rs.9.50 Lakh. Approach to the parking lot was not easy. He visited the office of Municipal Corporation, Shimla for possession. However, no officer was present on 1.1.2003. He has made representations to the defendants. In his cross-examination, he has admitted that he has carefully gone through the terms and conditions of the auction notice. He denied the suggestion that the work of the fourth floor was complete. He has admitted that he was asked vide Ext. PW-1/D to execute the lease deed. 9. PW-2 Sukh Ram testified that the defendants assured that the possession would be delivered on 1.1.2003, though the possession was not delivered. He denied the suggestion that the work of the fourth floor was complete. He has admitted that he was asked vide Ext. PW-1/D to execute the lease deed. 9. PW-2 Sukh Ram testified that the defendants assured that the possession would be delivered on 1.1.2003, though the possession was not delivered. Construction material was lying on the spot. he has accompanied the plaintiff on 1.1.2003 to take possession of parking lot. None of the officials of Municipal Corporation, Shimla was present. 10. DW-1 Jagdish Chand testified that the plaintiff has made highest bid of Rs.13.55 Lakh for the parking lot in fourth floor. He has signed the bid-sheet. Plaintiff and others had seen the spot and only thereafter they had participated in the auction. Plaintiff had deposited Rs.2.00 lakh as earnest money vide receipts Exts. PW-1/B and PW-1/C. Plaintiff was asked to take possession vide Ext. PW-1/D. He has also deposed that terms and conditions were read over and plaintiff has failed to deposit the balance amount within 30 days. 11. Plaintiff has also issued notice Ext. PW-1/A to the defendants to consider his claim to reduce the bid money. It is not in dispute that the plaintiff made the highest bid of Rs.13.50 Lakh. He has deposited Rs. 2,71,000/- as per Ext. PW-1/S. It is also admitted case that the plaintiff has not deposited the balance amount, though made several representations to the defendants. Plaintiff has admitted that he has gone through the terms and conditions of tender notice. DW-1 Jagdish Chand has deposed that the parties have been apprised of the terms and conditions. 12. Mr. Suneel Awasthi, Advocate, has relied upon the statement made by DW-1 Jagdish Chand that there was no condition that 20% of the total bid amount will be forfeited. It is evident from a plain reading of clause 2 of the Notice Inviting Tender that the bidder was required to deposit 20% of the bid amount at the fall of hammer. Earnest money by the successful bidder was to be adjusted against 20% of the balance amount to be paid within seven days from the issuance of allotment or within 30 days with interest @ 15% per annum. Parties were put to notice that in case bidder fails to deposit the amount within 30 days, with interest, bid shall be cancelled and 20% of the total bid amount will be forfeited. Parties were put to notice that in case bidder fails to deposit the amount within 30 days, with interest, bid shall be cancelled and 20% of the total bid amount will be forfeited. Plaintiff has made bid of Rs.13.50 Lakh but has failed to deposit the amount within 30 days with interest and thus bid was liable to be cancelled and 20% of the bid amount was to be forfeited. All the terms and conditions are to be read harmoniously. Statement of DW-1 could not be dehors the terms and conditions of the Notice Inviting Tender. Learned District Judge has correctly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence. The substantial question of law is answered accordingly. 13. Thus there is no illegality or perversity in the judgment and decree passed by the District Judge below where a sum of Rs.2,71,000/- has been forfeited strictly as per clause 2. 14. Accordingly, in view of the discussion and analysis made hereinabove, there is no merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed. Pending application (s), if any, also stand disposed of. No costs.