LALIT NARULA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) GRAM Panchayat, Village Bapoli, District Panipat is owner of 50 shops. These shops are released on licence/lease every year by way of auction. Lalit Narula, the petitioner was the highest bidder for the year 2013 -14 and was thus, to hold possession of the shops No. 1 and 2 till 31.3.2014 only. In the auction held for lease period 2014 -15, one Sunil son of Sh. Rakam Singh, resident of Village Bapoli, District Panipat was the highest bidder at the rate of Rs. 12,000/ - per month. Petitioner -plaintiff continues to be in possession despite notice of vacation having been sent to him by the respondent -Gram Panchayat. Finding no prima facie case in favour of the petitioner -plaintiff, both the Courts below have concurrently held his application for interim relief under Order XXXIX rules 1 & 2 CPC against him. It has also been found that irreparable loss and injury rather would be to Sunil, who is the highest bidder and has got the lease from 1.4.2014 to 31.3.2015. Thus, balance of convenience also does not lie in favour of the petitioner. Main suit seeking relief of permanent injunction is pending. It is not mentioned therein that lease for the year 2014 -15 has been given to highest bidder Sunil and not to the plaintiff.

(2.) CONSIDERING all the facts and circumstances, the lower Court even noticed that the plaintiff, now petitioner herein, had not approached the Court with clean hands as he never disclosed that the shops had been auctioned for the year 2014 -15 in favour of Sunil son of Sh. Rakam Singh. Observations of the Appellate Court are reproduced here below: -

(3.) IN these facts and circumstances, the authorities cited by learned counsel for the petitioner, i.e., Maria Margarida Sequeria Fernandes and others Vs. Erasmo Jack de Sequreia [Dead] through L.Rs. and others : 2012 [2] RCR [Civil] 441; Rame Gowda [D] by LRs Vs. Mr. Varadappa Naidu [D] by LRs and Anr. : 2004 [1] RCR [Civil] 519; Naurata Ram Vs. Raldu Ram and others, 2007 [3] RCR [Civil] 1; Gone Rajamma and others Vs. Chennamaneni Mohan Rao : 2010 [3] CCC 336 [AP] are of no help to him as facts found therein are quite at variance and with due deference and thus the law therein, does not support the cause of the petitioner.