In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh Civil Revision No. 7595 of 2009 (O&M) Om Parkash ... Petitioner vs Market Committee and another .... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. Ashish Grover, Advocate, for the petitioner. Rajesh Bindal J. Challenge in the present petition is to the orders passed by the courts below whereby the application for interim injunction filed by the petitioner- plaintiff seeking stay of recovery of Rs. 72,092/- from him was dismissed. It is a case in which the petitioner-plaintiff was granted a parking contract for the period from 20.9.2007 to 31.3.2008 for a sum of Rs. 5,21,000/- . It is one of the instalments of the contractual amount which was not paid by the petitioner and that amount was sought to be recovered from him as arrears of land revenue. Both the courts below having found no merit in the application filed by the petitioner for grant of interim stay, dismissed the same. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though the petitioner was granted parking contract for the period from 20.9.2007 to 31.3.2008, however, he could not properly utilise the same as part of the parking place was encroached upon. The matter was even reported to the authorities but no action was taken. On account of that he had suffered losses. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, I do not find any merit in the submissions. The petitioner was admittedly granted parking contract for a sum of Rs. 5,21,000/-. It is the balance amount of contractual money which is sought to be recovered from the petitioner. The issue as to whether part of the parking site was encroached upon by anybody is yet to be gone into by the court below. It was not disputed by learned counsel for the petitioner at the time of hearing that the plaintiff has not filed counter claim or suit to claim damages from the respondents. In case, the petitioner succeeds in the suit, he will get the amount refunded from the respondents. Prima facie case has not been made out for grant of interim stay of recovery as balance of convenience is not in favour of the petitioner/plaintiff. The revision is accordingly dismissed. 21.12.2009 ( Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge