IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.5472/2011 Date of decision:07.09.2011 M/s Partap Singh & Company .................Petitioner v. Smt.Dhankaur and others .................Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Jaswant Singh Present:- Mr. Parmod Parmar,Advocate for the plaintiff/petitioner Jaswant Singh,J.(Oral) Plaintiff/petitioner-Firm has filed the instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution assailing the orders P1 and P2 passed by the Courts below, whereby its application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC was dismissed. Plaintiff-Firm had taken 16K0M of land from the defendants/respondents for a period of 10 years i.e. from 5.7.2000 to 4.7.2010 vide registered lease deed dated 11.9.2000 to establish and run a brick kiln on the suit land. It is alleged that after its expiry the said lease period was extendable for a period of eight months i.e. upto 4.3.2011 against additional payment of Rs.30,000/- to enable the plaintiff/petitioner to wind up its business from the suit land. It is alleged that after the expiry of lease period when the plaintiff wanted to CR No.5472/2011 2 lift the bricks and other material from the suit land within the extendable period of 8 months, the defendants/respondents scuffled with the plaintiff/petitioner and did not permit it to lift the bricks and other materials from the suit land. With these averments plaintiff/petitioner filed a suit for permanent injunction alongwith an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. Upon notice of the application defendants/respondents filed reply stating therein that the plaintiff firm was in possession of the suit land since 1990; it had not complied with the conditions of the lease deed and had also encroached upon one acre of land of the defendants abutting the suit land. It was denied that any material belonging to the plaintiff/petitioner was lying at the spot. It is further denied that any payment of Rs.30,000/- was received for extension of lease period for a period of further eight months i.e. up till 4.3.2011. Both the courts after hearing both sides dismissed the injunction application filed by the petitioner firm thus declining the prayer to restrain the defendants from obstructing the plaintiff in removing the bricks kept in the brick kiln. Hence the revision petition. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the plaintiff/petitioner that both the courts below have erred in denying the injunction despite the fact that the petitioner had filed the application on 25.1.2011 i.e. within the extendable period of eight months. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, I find no merit in this submission of the learned counsel. CR No.5472/2011 3 It is the case of the petitioner/plaintiff that the original lease period was upto 4.7.2010 and on additional payment of Rs.30,000/- extendable for 8 months i.e. till 4.3.2011. It is submitted that the injunction application was filed on 25.1.2011 i.e. before the expiry of extendable lease period and thus, petitioner/plaintiff was entitled to injunction in order to remove his bricks etc. It cannot be disputed that the lease period which expired on 4.7.2010 was never extended on receipt of an additional amount of Rs.30,000/-. Thus, in my opinion, both the courts have rightly held that no injunction could be granted after the expiry of the lease period. Further, I fully agree with the observation made by the learned Additional District Judge that if plaintiff feels that any of the conditions of the lease deed has been violated by the defendants/respondents, it will be at liberty to file a suit for damages for the same. For the reasons stated above,finding no merit in this revision petition the same is hereby dismissed. 07.09.2011 (Jaswant Singh) joshi Judge