IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... Civil Revision No.2693 of 2009 (O&M) Attar Singh ... Applicant-Petitioner VERSUS Ram Niwas and others ... Respondents and Civil Revision No.4414 of 2009 (O&M) Avtar Singh ... Applicant-Petitioner VERSUS Ram Niwas and others ... Respondents Decided on : September 25, 2009 CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.Manohar Lal, Advocate for petitioner – Attar Singh. Mr.Sanjay Mittal, Advocate for respondent - Ramniwas. Mr.Jagdish Marwah, Advocate for respondents – Uttar-Paschim Railways. A.N.JINDAL, J.- This order of mine shall dispose of two revision petitions i.e. CR Nos.2693 of 2009 and 4414 of 2009, both, challenging the order dated 10.4.2009 passed by Additional District Judge, Narnaul, accepting the appeal against the order dated 8.11.2008 passed by Civil Judge (Jr.Divn.), Mahendergarh, directing the defendants – petitioners (herein referred as `the defendants') to hand over the charge of Halt Station Gudha-Kemla to plaintiff – respondent (herein referred as `the plaintiff') within fortnight. The factual background of the case is that vide letter dated 14.11.2005, the Divisional Officer, Bikaner (Raj.) had given the 64 Halt Station to the plaintiff on the commission basis for a period of five years. The plaintiff had applied for being agent for the Halt Station and he became a successful allottee vide Lottery dated 28.2.2006. It was further averred that defendant – Railways in collusion with defendant – Attar Singh arbitrarily and illegally put the Halt on lottery on 15.4.2008 and allotted the same to Attar Singh. It was further contended that since Attar Singh has been interfering in his peaceful possession, therefore, the plaintiff had to file the suit. Along with the suit, an application for ad-interim injunction was filed. The defendants put in appearance and contested the cause while stating that the plaintiff was never given any contract for five years, but the allotment given to him was only for six months, that was cancelled for administrative reasons. The plaintiff while accepting the cancellation had participated in the fresh lottery, where he became unsuccessful and the defendant – petitioner Attar Singh became successful. After hearing the counsel for the parties, the Trial Court dismissed the application for temporary injunction restraining the defendants No.1 to 4 from interfering in his possession. However, in appeal filed by the plaintiff, the same was accepted and the Additional District Judge vide order dated 10.4.2009 directed the defendants to hand-over the charge of the Halt station to the plaintiff. Arguments heard. Record perused. Vide letter dated 14.11.2005, the applications were called for appointment of Halt Agent for five years. However, the plaintiff was allotted Halt station on 28.2.2006. The defendants have also placed on record the agreement dated 3.12.2008 regarding the appointment of the plaintiff as Halt Agent for Gudha-Kemla. The memorandum of agreement dated 30.6.2003 and the letters dated 30.6.2004, 20.12.2004, 28.2.2005 and 3.5.2005 reveal that the agency issued in favour of the plaintiff was renewed from time to time. The record also reveals that vide order dated 14.9.2005, the contract of Halt station was accepted for one year i.e. upto 30.6.2006 and till finalisation of fresh allotment. The letter dated 30.5.2006 (in continuation of letter dated 14.9.2005) reveals that the term was extended upto 31.12.2006 and till finalisation of fresh allotment. The record further transpires that vide letter dated 29.12.2006, the contract of Halt station was extended upto 30.6.2007 and it continued upto 30.6.2008. The aforesaid letters clearly depict that the contract was not given to the plaintiff for a continuous period of five years, but it had been extended from time to time, therefore, he cannot claim any lien over the Halt station on the ground that he had been granted contract for five years. Actually, the matter does not end here, the contract was given to the petitioner - defendant Attar Singh and he was handed over the charge in pursuance of the order of the Senior DCM, Bikaner vide his letter bearing No.91RB/Gudha-Kemla/98 dated 12.11.2008 and all the unused articles were handed over to the defendant along with tools and plants. The document (Annexure P-5) relating to the draw of lots reveals that Ram Niwas – plaintiff participated in the draw along with the Attar Singh – defendant on 15.11.2008, wherein, Attar Singh became successful. As such, in pursuance of the order passed regarding contract, Attar Singh was handed over the possession. Thus, now the plaintiff cannot come to contend that defendant Attar Singh is not entitled to claim his right over the Halt station. The Appellate Court has not taken note of the aforesaid facts and wrongly expressed that the plaintiff was entitled to remain on the post of Halt Agent for five years from the date of his appointment. Vide letter dated 28.2.2006, after the draw of lots, the contract was allotted to the plaintiff, the period of which was extended, time and again, till the finalisation of fresh allotment. Now, the plaintiff cannot come to contend that the policy was wrong, illegal and null and void and thus, he also cannot seek injunction in the mandatory form that the possession of the Halt station be handed over to him. The defendant Attar Singh being successful in the draw of lots, cannot be turned out of the business. He having deposited substantial sum in lieu of the contract, would be put to serious losses, if at this stage, he is asked to surrender the possession. Even otherwise, the order passed by the Appellate Court is perverse, as a direction to the defendants to hand-over the possession to the plaintiff, would amount decreeing his suit at its very inception. Thus, it was not in the fitness of things to pass such an order of mandatory injunction, at this stage. Resultantly, both the petitions are allowed; the impugned order dated 10.4.2009 (Annexure P-8) is set aside and that of the Trial Court dated 8.11.2008 is restored. September 25, 2009 ( A.N.JINDAL ) `gian' JUDGE