CR No.4834/2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.4834/2011 Date of decision: 19.08.2011 Dr.Ravindra Kumar and another ....................Petitioners v. M/s Shiv Sai Infrastructure Pvt.Ltd. And another .....................Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr.Justice Jaswant Singh Present: Mr.JS Hooda,Advocate for the petitioners. Jaswant Singh.J.(Oral) Plaintiffs/petitioners have filed the instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution assailing the order dated 19.5.2011 (P1) passed by the learned Civil Judge (Jr.Div.)Faridabad, dismissing their application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC as well as the order dated 8.7.2011 (P2)passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Faridabad, whereby the appeal filed by the plaintiffs/petitioners against the order dated 19.5.2011 (P1) was dismissed. Briefly noticed the facts of the case are that petitioners booked a flat on the 12th floor of the residential flats being constructed by the respondents/defendants. It is the grievance of the CR No.4834/2011 2 petitiones/plaintiffs that as per the brochure supplied to them by respondents/defendants there was a provision for installing lifts of the size of 1900 mm x 1900 mm, however, when the petitioners/plaintiffs visited the site they found that the lifts being installed were of smaller size. Aggrieved against the same, the petitioners/plaintiffs filed a suit for permanent injunction with consequential relief of mandatory injunction against the respondents/defendants. Alongwith the suit the petitioners/plaintiffs also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC praying for ad interim injunction restraining the respondents/ defendants from raising further construction. As noticed above the said application was dismissed by the learned trial court vide impugned order dated 19.5.2011 (P1) and the appeal filed against the same was also dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Faridabad vide impugned order dated 8.7.2011 (P2). Hence the present revision petition. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the plaintiffs petitioners that both the impugned orders are liable to be set aside as these have been passed on mere conjecture and surmises and without application of judicious mind. Having gone through the impugned orders I find no force in the submission of the learned counsel. Both the courts below on the basis of the material available on record have found that the District Town Planner, Faridabad approved CR No.4834/2011 3 the sanctioned site plan according to which the area of the lift was 1900 mm x 1900 mm and in this area the machinery/structure for operating the lift car would also be installed and therefore, the size of the car would be considerably smaller than the aforesaid space. It has further been noticed that merely because the word “lift” has been used in the brochure instead of the word “lift car” or “cage” would not mean that the developer had offered to install a bigger lift. It has also been noticed that even as per the sanctioned site plan the total area left for the installation of the car as well as the machinery etc. was 1900 mm x 1900 mm in which obviously machinery etc. has also to be installed, resulting in reduced size of the car/cage. As regards the contention that the construction of lifts is not in conformity with the sizes/dimensions mentioned in the brochure, it has been found that in the brochure it was specifically mentioned that the sizes/dimensions are only tentative and liable to change. In view of the above, I find no illegality or irregularity in exercise of the discretionary powers by the courts below. Dismissed. However, nothing stated above shall be taken as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. 19.08.2011 (Jaswant Singh) joshi Judge