IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 2601 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision : 06.05.2010. Ashok Kumar ......Petitioner Versus Market Committee, Ludhiana and another ......Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAWAB SINGH Present: Mr. Kuldip Sanwal, Advocate, for the petitioner. NAWAB SINGH J.(ORAL) This plaintiff's revision is directed against the order dated April 6th, 2010 passed by Additional District Judge, whereby, he upheld the order dated May 9th, 2008 of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana, dismissing the application of the plaintiff under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, filed along with the suit. 2. Plaintiff had taken Dharam Kanda (Weigh-bridge) situated at Dana Mandi, Ludhiana from Market Committee, Ludhiana (respondent No.1) on lease on October 1st, 2004 for a period of 11 months. The lease period was extended from time to time. On April 18th, 2008, fresh auction took place and one Jaskaran Singh had taken the aforesaid Dharam Kanda on lease from May 1st, 2008 to March 31st, 2009. Petitioner also participated in the auction bid, but he failed to secure the same. He filed the suit. Along with the suit, he also filed application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2, which was dismissed by the impugned orders. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that possession of Dharam Kanda has been taken by the Market Committee on April 6th, 2010 and prior thereto, the same was on lease with the petitioner, but he did not pay the lease amount and by issuing notices dated November 10th, 2008, December 29th, 2008 and February 12th, 2009, the Market Committee has demanded the lease amount. The only prayer made is that the Market Committee, Ludhiana be directed to accept the lease-amount in installments. Civil Revision No. 2601 of 2010 (2) .. 4. After perusing the record and hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, there is no justification in accepting the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner being devoid of merit. 5 In view of above, the orders under challenge does not call for any interference. The petition is accordingly dismissed. (NAWAB SINGH) JUDGE 06.05.2010 som