IMPROVEMENT TRUST, BARNALA AND ORS. Vs. THE BARNALA IRON AND STEEL DEALERS COOPERATIVE HOUSE BUILDING SOCIETY LTD. AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This was second appeal filed by the appellants -defendants Improvement Trust, Barnala and another (hereinafter referred to as the "appellant Improvement Trust") impugning the judgment and decree dated 03.11.1995 passed in Civil Suit No. 702 of 20.10.1994 by learned Sub Judge Ist Class, Barnala, decreeing the suit for mandatory injunction filed by plaintiff -respondent No. 1 'The Barnala Iron and Steel Dealers Cooperative House Building Society Limited' (hereinafter referred to as the "plaintiff society") which was upheld by the first appellate Court vide judgment dated 21.11.1998.

(2.) By way of a suit for mandatory injunction filed by the plaintiff society, a prayer was made for issuing mandate to the appellant Improvement Trust to allot the land measuring 12.97 acres in Superdenti Tohba Scheme and 25 acres Development Scheme which was reserved for Steel Market Complex (hereinafter referred to as the "suit land"). The plaintiff pleaded that the appellant Improvement Trust had reserved the suit land for Steel Market Complex while making the development scheme, but now despite long correspondence and personal meetings and in contravention to the scheme has refused to allot the suit land to the plaintiff society and is planning to allot the same to some other persons though it has no right to do so.

(3.) The suit was contested by the appellant Improvement Trust on various legal and factual grounds. The preliminary objections raised were that the suit was not maintainable in the present form; the suit was barred by limitation; a valid notice under Sec. 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, "the Code") had not been served; the plaintiff society was estopped from filing the present suit by its own act and conduct; no cause of action for filing the suit had accrued to the plaintiff society; and lastly that the suit had become infructuous. Replying on merits, the appellant denied that the site was ever reserved for the plaintiff society and submitted that the case of the said society was rejected by the Government and the land had been utilized by the appellant Improvement Trust by preparing requisite scheme.