CR No.3235 of 2009(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.3235 of 2009(O&M) Date of decision: 29.5.2009 Joginder Kumar ......Petitioner Versus U.T. Chandigarh Administration and others ......Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Mr. Amit Jhanji, Advocate for the petitioner. * * * Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.(Oral) CM No.13468-CII of 2009 CM is allowed subject to all just exceptions. CR No.3235 of 2009 This is plaintiff's revision petition challenging the orders dated 12.6.2007 and 3.10.2008 passed by the Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Chandigarh and Additional District Judge, Chandigarh respectively whereby his application, under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC for grant of ad interim injunction for restraining the defendant-respondents from dispossessing the petitioner from the booth in question during the pendency of the suit, has been rejected. As per the averments made in this petition, the petitioner is doing business of Karyana items in Rehri Market, Sector 24, Chandigarh, for the last about 14 years under a license in the name of his cousin Sham Sunder. The defendant-respondents had framed a Scheme to rehabilitate the persons who are doing the business in the Rehri Market and that he is entitled to allotment of a booth. On these averments, the plaintiff-petitioner filed a suit for mandatory injunction to the effect that he is CR No.3235 of 2009(O&M) 2 entitled for allotment of pucca booth in Rehri Market, Sector 24, Chandigarh. Along with the suit, the petitioner had moved an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC for ad interim injunction restraining the authorities from dislocating the petitioner from the present site till the allotment is made to him in the Rehri Market as per the scheme. The aforesaid suit and the application was contested by the respondents submitting that the plaintiff is not a licence-holder and he is sitting on the Government land unauthorizedly. The Scheme as framed by the Administration was meant to rehabilitate those persons who were holding a valid license and were in authorized occupation of Rehri Market. Sham Sunder is a licence-holder and his name has been recommended for the allotment of booth and therefore, the petitioner was not entitled to any allotment and his suit is liable to be dismissed. After considering the arguments of both the sides, the trial Court as well as the Lower Appellate Court rejected the prayer of the petitioner for grant of ad interim injunction. It is well settled principles of law that the Appellate Court will not interfere with the exercise of discretion of the court of first instance and substitute its own discretion except where the discretion has been shown to have been exercised arbitrarily, or capriciously or perversely or where the Court had ignored the settled principles of law regulating grant or refusal of interlocutory injunctions. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. It is the petitioner's own case that there is no license in his name and in fact he is doing the business under a license which is in the name of his cousin Sham Sunder and the aforesaid Sham Sunder has already been recommended for allotment of booth. No error of jurisdiction which warrants interference by this Court has been shown. Thus, I do not CR No.3235 of 2009(O&M) 3 find any merit in this revision petition. Dismissed. However, it is made clear that any expression made herein may not be taken as an opinion on the merits of the case. May 29, 2009 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE