R.S.A. No. 4780 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.- R.S.A. No. 4780 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision:- 13.12.2010 Ravinder Kaur ... Appellant Versus Chairman Improvement Trust, Ropar & Anr. ... Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present:- Mr. Hemant Saini, Advocate, for the appellant. Gurdev Singh, J (oral) This is the second appeal preferred by the appellant/plaintiff – Ravinder Kaur. She filed suit for declaration to the effect that she is the owner of plot No. 317 situated in Giani Zail Singh Nagar, Ropar and that the order dated 7.3.2000 passed by the respondents/defendants resuming that plot is illegal, null and void and also for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from recovering the sum of ` 3,10,475/- vide letter dated 18.12.2001. The suit was dismissed by the Civil Judge (Jr. Division) Rupnagar, after recording the finding to the effect that the plaintiff and his vendor failed to fulfill the terms and conditions on which the allotment of the plot was made and as such the same was validly resumed. That finding of the trial Court was upheld by the first Appellate Court. According to learned counsel for the plaintiff, the substantial question of law arises in the present appeal is :- R.S.A. No. 4780 of 2010 (O&M) -2- “as to whether the grant of the injunction in the civil suit filed by the original vendor, in which status quo order was passed, will amount to the extension for the period of three years?” According to him the plaintiff could not have been raised construction on the plot in dispute during the pendency of the suit on account of the operation of the ad-interim injunction and as such she cannot be penalised for having violated the terms and conditions of the original allotment letter. The allotment was made on 20.1.1984 and the period of three years for raising that construction expired in the year 1987. The plot in dispute was purchased by the plaintiff in the year 1989 and the transfer in her name was made on 15.12.1989 by the defendants. She stepped into the shoes of her vendor and cannot claim that fresh period of three years was to be computed for the date of transfer of plot in her name. No new contract was entered into between her and the defendants. In view of the circumstances discussed above, no substantial question of law arises in the present appeal. The same is dismissed accordingly. December 13, 2010 (Gurdev Singh) tripti Judge