IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Second Appeal No. 31 of 2009 [ Smt. Kanta Rani W/o Shri Rajpal R/o A –6, Shivalik Nagar, B.H.E.L. Ranipur, Haridwar, District Haridwar. ...…………. Plaintiff / Appellant Versus 1. U.P. State Industrial Development Nigam Ltd. Kanpur Complex through its General Manager U.P.S.I.D.C., A –1 / 4, Lakhanpur, Kanpur – 208 024. 2. Regional Manager U.P. State Industrial Development Nigam Ltd. R/o 65 / 1, Panchsheel Colony, Garh Road, Meerut. ...…………Defendants / Respondents Mr. Lok Pal Singh, Advocate for plaintiff / appellant. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned judgment and decree dated 24.03.2009, passed by the first appellate court (Addl. District Judge / III F.T.C., Haridwar), in Civil Appeal No. 01 of 2001, whereby the judgment and decree dated 02.09.2006, passed by the trial court [I Addl. Civil Judge (Junior Division) Haridwar], in Suit No. 96 of 1998, is affirmed. 2 2) Brief facts of the case are that the defendant / respondent U.P. State Industrial Development Nigam Limited transferred plot in question, on lease to the plaintiff / appellant, for setting up an industry. The plaintiff / appellant has sought the injunction against the defendants restraining them from taking possession of the plot in question. 3) There is concurrent finding of fact recorded by the courts below that the plaintiff / appellant failed to comply with the terms and conditions on which the lease was granted in respect of the plot in suit, in her favour. As such, injunction was refused by the trial court, and the decree was affirmed by the lower appellate court. 4) Having heard learned counsel for the plaintiff / appellant, this Court does not find any substantial question of law involved in this appeal. 5) Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed summarily. (Interim Relief Application No. 4934 of 2009 also stands dismissed). (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt. June 19, 2009. H. Negi 3