C.R. No. 2384 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 2384 of 2011 Date of Decision: 13.9.2011 Rekha Rani ....Petitioner. Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. PRESENT: Mr. Anil Kshetarpal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Amit Jaswal, Advocate for respondents No.2 to 4. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. 1. Having failed before both the courts below, the plaintiff has approached this Court by way of instant petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing of the orders dated 7.1.2010 (Annexure P-14) passed by the trial court and dated 22.11.2010 (Annexure P-15) passed by the learned appellate court whereby application for interim injunction filed by the plaintiff was declined. 2. Put shortly, the facts necessary for adjudication of the present petition are that respondent No.2 planned to establish a new grain market in Radaur and held auction on 23.5.2001 for the sale of plots for the shops. The petitioner purchased plot No.54 for an amount of Rs.2,31,000/- in the said auction. She was issued allotment letter dated 7.7.2001. In pursuance thereof, the petitioner deposited the C.R. No. 2384 of 2011 -2- entire amount of sale consideration along with interest. The petitioner filed CWP No. 19644 of 2005 pleading that no interest on the installment was to be charged as per Rule 5 of the Haryana State Agriculture Marketing Board Rules, 2000. The said writ petition was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 16.2.2009 granting liberty to the petitioner to file a civil suit. The petitioner completed the construction of the shop on 31.12.2007 and got an electricity connection in the year 2008. Vide letter dated 24.9.2010, the petitioner was informed that the water supply and sewerage work was completed on 30.6.2009. The petitioner sought information as to when the platform in front of shops No.50-59 was completed, upon which he was informed vide letter dated 12.10.2010 that it was completed on 31.5.2005. Thereafter, respondent No.4 issue a notice dated 20.1.2009 calling upon the petitioner to deposit the dues and non-construction charges by 31.12.2009. The petitioner challenged the said notice by filing civil suit. Along with the plaint, the petitioner also filed an application for stay of recovery of non-construction charges and restraining the defendants from resuming the plot in question. The said application was dismissed by the trial court vide order dated 7.1.2010. The appeal against the order dated 7.1.2010 was also dismissed by the appellate court vide order dated 22.11.2010. The petitioner applied for completion of construction of the shop vide application dated 30.11.2009. However, the said application was rejected on the ground of pendency of the suit. The petitioner also filed an application for depositing the non- construction charges along with interest. The respondents filed reply to the said application pleading that the date for deposit of non- C.R. No. 2384 of 2011 -3- construction charges amounting to Rs.1,80,000/- had lapsed. It was pleaded that the entire price of the plot along with interest had been paid and the petitioner is ready to pay the non-construction charges with interest. Even to show his bonafide, the petitioner had got deposited a bank draft dated 17.3.2011 for Rs.2,10,000/- (Rs.1,80,000/- non- construction charges plus interest). Hence, the present revision petition. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had purchased plot in dispute on 23.5.2001 in an open auction whereby the plaintiff was required to pay the amount in six equated installments. Having made complete payment towards the cost of the plot, the plaintiff raised construction thereon which could not be completed within the stipulated time but stood completed on 31.12.2007. Learned counsel further submitted that the defendant- respondents had extended the last date for raising construction by 31.12.2009 in the cases of the similarly situated persons in the vicinity as that of the plaintiff. Learned counsel urged that in case the interim injunction is not granted, the plaintiff will suffer irreparable loss and injury which cannot be compensated by way of costs. It was also submitted that the penalty amounting to Rs.2,10,000/- on account of non-construction of building in time had been paid on 13.4.2011. Lastly, it was submitted that the suit can be directed to be disposed within a time bound frame. Since the petitioner has raised construction of shop/ booths on the plot in dispute, the same be protected during the pendency of the suit. C.R. No. 2384 of 2011 -4- 5. Controverting the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the plaintiff having failed to raise the construction of shop/booths within the stipulated period cannot derive any benefit from the failure on her part in raising the construction and in violation of the terms of allotment. Raising of construction by 31.12.2007 was also controverted. It was submitted that the draft of Rs.2,10,000/- submitted on 13.4.2011 had not been encashed. He, however, stated that the defendants be allowed to encash the same without prejudice to their rights in pending suit. 6. After having given my thoughtful consideration to the respective submissions of learned counsel for the parties, I find considerable force in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner. Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure envisages the fulfilment of the following conditions in order to entitle the plaintiff seeking interim injunction:- (a) there should be a prima facie case in favour of the plaintiff; (b) balance of convenience lies in favour of the plaintiff; (c) non-grant of the interim injunction would cause irreparable loss and injury. 7. The plaintiff had completed the construction of shop on plot No. 54 by 31.12.2007 and in similarly situated cases, the defendants had extended the date upto 31.12.2009. Further, the entire amount of auction money and also the charges for non-construction of the building in time had been deposited by the plaintiff. The three tests noticed above for grant of interim injunction thus stands fulfilled in the instant C.R. No. 2384 of 2011 -5- case. Consequently, the revision petition is allowed and it is directed that the parties shall maintain status quo with regard to construction and possession of the shop/booths during the pendency of suit. Nothing observed herein shall affect the adjudication of the suit between the parties. However, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the trial court is directed to expedite the disposal of the suit as early as possible preferably within one year. The defendants shall be at liberty to encash the bank draft for Rs.2,10,000/- without prejudice to their rights in the suit. 8. The revision petition stands disposed of accordingly. September 13, 2011 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) gbs JUDGE