ORDER : 1. Leave granted. 2. This common order disposes of the present appeals. 3. In our opinion, the High Court, vide the impugned judgment(s), was clearly wrong in affirming the judgments of the first appellate court, which reversed the judgments and decrees of the trial court, dismissing two suits qua Plot Nos. 73 and 74 in Indira Commercial Complex, Pandari Tarai, Raipur, under the Devendra/Devinder Nagar Commercial Scheme, and in declaring the cancellation of allotment of the aforesaid plots in favour of the plaintiffs as illegal. 4. The facts are startling and show that the said plaintiffs, the respondents before us, had not come to the Court with clean hands and were guilty of suppressing important and relevant facts. 5. It is an accepted position that the auction of the said two plots was held on 08.12.1988 and as per the terms of the auction, the plaintiffs/respondents were required to deposit 30% of the bid amount immediately. However, they only deposited 10% of the bid amount. It is the case of the appellants, including the Raipur Development Authority 1 [For short, “RDA”], that the Chairman confirmed the highest bids given by the plaintiffs/respondents and issued letter dated 05.01.1989 requiring them to deposit the entire bid amount, that is, the balance 90% by 16.01.1989. This was in conformity with clause 9 of the terms of the auction. It is also an accepted position that the plaintiffs/respondents deposited 20% of the bid amount and not 90% on 16.01.1989, as required by clause 9 of the auction terms read with the letter dated 05.01.1989. 6. It is the case of the RDA that it had subsequently issued notices, that is, Exhibit D-3 dated 11.04.1989, Exhibit D-4 dated 11.05.1989, Exhibit D-5 dated 06.03.1990, Exhibit D-6 dated 12.07.1990 and, thereafter, the allotment was cancelled by notice, Exhibit P-7, dated 12.10.1990. 7. What has weighed with the first appellate Court and the High Court is the plea and contention of the plaintiffs/respondents that they did not receive any of the above notices. The RDA was remiss, as it did not file proof of service of the said notices. 8. 7. What has weighed with the first appellate Court and the High Court is the plea and contention of the plaintiffs/respondents that they did not receive any of the above notices. The RDA was remiss, as it did not file proof of service of the said notices. 8. There is no doubt that there was a lapse on the part of the RDA in the above regard but this factum alone, in the facts of the present case, would not matter as anyone who has given a bid would follow up with the authority (RDA) and ensure that the balance payment is made. There is a yawning gap between the date of auction, that is, 08.12.1988 and the date of filing of the suit, that is, 10.03.1992. 9. Further, the plaintiffs/respondents themselves made payment on 16.01.1989, which was the last date mentioned in the letter dated 05.01.1989. In our opinion, it would be fair to draw a conclusion that the plaintiffs/respondents were duly served with the notice dated 05.01.1989 and, therefore, they made the payment on the last date stipulated therein. 10. Lastly, we may note that the plaintiffs/respondents had not filed suits seeking specific performance and had instead filed suits for stay of the proposed auction and for declaration that the cancellation of their bids was illegal. The suits, as framed, were not maintainable and should have been dismissed on this ground alone. 11. Recording the aforesaid, the impugned judgment(s) is/are set aside and the appeals are allowed. 12. The result will be that Civil Suit Nos. 169A/1995 and 170-A/1995 filed by the plaintiffs/respondents, shall be treated as dismissed. 13. There shall be no order as to costs.