LAWS(P&H)-2010-5-204

RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Vs. DISTRICT RED CROSS

Decided On May 06, 2010
RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Appellant
V/S
District Red Cross Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PLAINTIFF Nos. 1 to 3 and 6 to 9 have filed the instant second appeal, after the plaintiffs (appellants and respondent Nos. 8 to 10) remained unsuccessful in both the Courts below.

(2.) THE plaintiffs' claim is that pursuant to advertisement dated 01.07.1997 in newspaper, the plaintiffs approached defendant No. 1, District Red Cross Society, Muktsar for allotment of sites of shops/show rooms and accordingly plaintiffs No. 1 and 2 were allotted site of shop No. 2; plaintiff Nos. 3 and 4 were allotted site of Shop No. 1; plaintiff No. 5 was allotted site of shop No. 3; Plaintiff No. 6 was allotted site of Shop No. 4 and plaintiff Nos. 7 to 10 were allotted site of Shop No. 5. The plaintiffs also paid various amounts to defendant No. 1. However, defendant No. 1 re-advertised the said sites in newspaper on 12.10.1997 for auction on 15.10.1997. Thereupon the plaintiffs filed suit for permanent injunction on 15.10.1997. By amendment, the plaintiffs pleaded that agreements dated 17.10.1997 were executed between the plaintiffs and defendant No. 1 regarding allotment of the aforesaid sites. The plaintiffs sought relief of declaration and injunction restraining the defendant No. 1 from allotting the disputed sites to any other person and from auctioning the same on 15.10.1997. It was also claimed that the subsequent proceedings of auction were null and void and liable to be cancelled and not binding on the plaintiffs. It was also claimed that allotment of the sites in favour of the plaintiffs is legal and valid. Alleged cancellation of allotment of the sites to plaintiffs is illegal, null and void.

(3.) LEARNED Civil Judge (Junior Division), Muktsar vide judgment and decree dated 15.05.2002, dismissed the plaintiffs' suit. First appeal preferred by the plaintiffs has been dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Muktsar vide judgment and decree dated 21.12.2005. Feeling aggrieved, the plaintiff No. 1 to 3 and 6 to 9 only have preferred the instant second appeal.