IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.2122 of 2008 Date of decision: May 19, 2008. Dhariwal Polymers Pvt. Ltd. ...Petitioner(s) v. Haryana Urban Development Authority & Ors. ...Respondent(s) CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest. Present: Shri Arun Jain, Senior Advocate, with Shri Sanjay Vij, Advocate, for the petitioner. ORDER Surya Kant, J. - (Oral): This Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 8.1.2008 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court- II, Gurgaon whereby, on an appeal preferred by the respondent – HUDA authorities, the petitioner's application under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 read with Section 151 CPC which was allowed by the learned trial court vide order dated 18.4.2007, has been dismissed and as a sequal thereto, the above stated order has been set aside. The petitioner – plaintiff-company has filed a civil suit for declaration and mandatory injunction to the effect that it being the highest bidder for a commercial site in a public auction held by HUDA and 25% of the bid money having been accepted, the subsequent return thereof by the Estate Officer is totally illegal and the subject site stands allotted to the petitioner. The petitioner – plaintiff also moved an application for the grant of ad-interim injunction, which was allowed by the learned trial court to the extent that the respondents were restrained from re-auctioning the site though with a further rider that the Chief Administrator, HUDA may take a final decision in the matter and if it goes against the petitioner – plaintiff, then the HUDA authorities shall be at liberty to proceed in accordance with law. Aggrieved, the respondents preferred an appeal which has been allowed by the learned Additional District Judge vide the impugned order. It may be true that the petitioner was the highest bidder in the auction held for the sale of the subject site on 24.5.2004 and 10% of the auction money was deposited by the petitioner at the spot. It is, however, not in dispute that the next installment of 15% of the auction amount was to be deposited by the petitioner only after issuance of the allotment letter. No allotment letter was admittedly issued in favour of the petitioner, yet it is claimed to have deposited the remaining 15% amount as well. From the stand taken by the respondents, it further appears that the petitioner's bid was never accepted by the competent authority, therefore, the part of the bid-amount deposited by the petitioner was returned to it by the Estate Officer. While seeking ad-interim injunction, besides proving other essential ingredients, the petitioner is also required to make out a prima- facie case in its favour. Admittedly, the petitioner's bid was not accepted by the competent authority and no allotment letter was issued in its favour. No legal right, thus, appears to have accrued in its favour. I am, therefore, of the considered view that the petitioner has not been able to satisfy all the three basic ingredients necessary for the grant of ad-interim injunction. No case to interfere with the impugned order is made out. Dismissed. However, the observations made herein-above shall have no bearing on the merits of the case, which, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the learned trial court is directed to expedite. May 19, 2008. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge