IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No. 3153 of 2003 Date of decision : 26.8.2009 M/s Premier Needle Crafts (P) Ltd. ….. Petitioner Versus Addl. District Judge, Gurgaon and Others ….. Respondents Present: Mr. Adarsh Jain, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Rajesh Hooda, Advocate for the respondents. **** S.S. SARON, J. This revision petition has been filed by the plaintiff/petitioner against the order dated 4.6.2003 (Annexure P22) passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Gurgaon (respondent No.1), whereby the order dated 30.1.2001 (Annexure P20) passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gurgaon has been set aside. The plaintiff-petitioner filed a suit on the allegations that M/s Ambitious Polymers Pvt. Ltd. (respondent No.4) was initially allottee in possession of an industrial plot bearing No.DP-352 situated in Phase –II, Udyog Vihar, Gurgaon. M/s Ambitious Polymers Pvt. Ltd. (respondent No.4) on 4.12.1993 agreed to sell and the plaintiff agreed to purchase the said plot for a total sale consideration of Rs.5,30,000/-. An agreement to sell dated 4.12.1993 was entered into in this regard between the petitioner and respondent No.4. According to the terms of the said agreement, respondent No.4 had received the entire sale consideration of the plot along with the original documents. Besides, CR No. 3153 of 2003 [2] possession of the plot was delivered to the plaintiff-petitioner. The plaintiff- petitioner after taking actual physical possession of the plot from respondent No.4 got the plan sanctioned and raised construction after investing substantial amount. The plaintiff-petitioner also took water, electricity and telephone connections in the plot in question. The plot, however, was not transferred in the name of the plaintiff-petitioner by the Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation (HSIDC) (respondent No.2) and Managing Director, HSIDC (respondent No.3) despite many efforts made. The plaintiff-petitioner and respondent No.4 had been making efforts to get the plot transferred in the name of the plaintiff-petitioner, however respondents No.2 and 3 delayed the matter. Respondents No.2 and 3 had vide letter dated 15.4.1999 given their consent to transfer the plot in question in the name of the plaintiff-petitioner. In fact in terms of the said letter the plaintiff-petitioner was asked to deposit the transfer fee of Rs.5000/- per square meter. The respondents No.2 and 3, however, now had resumed the plot in question vide letter dated 8.9.2000 and they were threatening and intending to take possession of the same. Respondents No.2 and 3 contested the suit filed by the plaintiff. It was alleged that M/s Ambitious Polymers Pvt. Ltd. (respondent No.4) on 04.12.1993 had unauthorizedly entered into an agreement with the plaintiff- petitioner prior to the issuance of regular letter of allotment which was against law and facts. The conveyance deed had not even been executed in favour of respondent No.4 and no final transfer letter was issued in favour of the plaintiff- petitioner. The request for transfer of the plot in favour of the plaintiff- petitioner was declined by respondents No.2 and 3 vide letter dated 1.6.1999. Therefore, respondent No.4 was still allottee of the plot in question. Besides, respondent No.4 had not become the absolute owner of the plot at the time of execution of the agreement to sell on 4.12.1993. The respondents No.2 and 3 CR No. 3153 of 2003 [3] vide letter dated 15.4.1999 had agreed to consider the transfer of plot subject to payment of fee equivalent to the difference of reserved price i.e. Rs.5000/- per sq. meter of the plot, which was to be on the original rate at which the plot was allotted to respondent No.4. The request of the plaintiff-petitioner for reconsidering the matter of the transfer was declined by the HSIDC (respondent No.2) vide letter No.952 dated 1.6.1999. The plaintiff-petitioner was, however, asked to give its consent within 15 days for payment of difference in the rate of plot failing which the respondents No.2 and 3 would reject the application for transfer and initiate action for resumption. The resumption order dated 8.9.2000 was issued by respondents No.2 and 3 which was in accordance with the terms and conditions of the agreement and respondent No.4 was still allottee of the plot in question. The learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gurgaon vide order dated 30.1.2001 considered the contentions raised in the application filed by the plaintiff-petitioner under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 CPC. Accordingly, respondents No.2 and 3 were restrained from interfering, disturbing, dispossessing or in any manner tampering with the possession of the plaintiff-petition in respect of the suit property and also from re-allotting the said plot to any other person till the decision of the suit. Aggrieved against the same, Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation (HSIDC) (respondent No.2) filed an appeal (Annexure P21). The learned Additional District Judge, Gurgaon vide order dated 4.6.2003 (Annexure P22) accepted the appeal and set aside the order dated 30.1.2001 passed by the trial Court. Aggrieved against the same, the plaintiff-petitioner has filed the present petition. Notice of motion was issued on 14.7.2003 and in the meanwhile, operation of the order dated 4.6.2003 (Annexure P22) passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Gurgaon was ordered, shall remain stayed till further orders. The appeal was admitted on 22.9.2006 and the interim order dated CR No. 3153 of 2003 [4] 14.7.2003 was made absolute subject to the petitioner furnishing adequate surety to the extent of Rs.5000/- per square meter of the plot area, within a period of two months from the date of the order i.e. 22.9.2006. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has furnished adequate and necessary surety to the extent of Rs.5000/- per square meter of the plot area within 2 months. Today, when the case was taken up for hearing, it has transpired that the case before the trial Court is now listed for final arguments on 28.8.2009. In the circumstances, it would be just and expedient to dispose of the present petition with the direction that the order dated 14.7.2003 whereby the operation of the order dated 4.6.2003 (Annexure P22) passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Gurgaon was stayed and was made absolute on 22.9.2006 shall continue till the final disposal of the suit by the trial Court. Accordingly, the civil revision petition is disposed of with the direction that the interim order dated 14.7.2003 which was made absolute on 22.9.2006 shall continue and remain operative till the disposal of the suit finally by the learned trial Court. It is, however, hoped that the learned trial Court shall dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible and preferably within two months from the receipt of copy of the order. (S.S. SARON) JUDGE August 26, 2009 amit