MANGI LAL Vs. MUNICIPAL BOARD, BALOTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed against the order of the learned Civil Judge, Balotra dated November 8, 1990 by which he has dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order of the Learned Munsif, Balotra dated December 23, 1988 refusing temporary injunction. The facts of the case giving rise to this revision petition may be summarised thus.

(2.) On December 10, 1982, the non-petitioner auctioned a plot situated in Balotra town. The highest bid was of the petitioner for Rs. 18,000/- he deposited the 1/4th amount of Rs. 45,00/-. Despite receipt of the registered notice for depositing the balance amount of Rs. 13,500/-, he did not deposit the same. The non-petitioner published a notice in the 'Simant Times' dated March 11, 1987 for the re-auction of the said plot. Thereon, he filed a suit for injunction along with an application under Order 39 rules 1 and 2, C.P.C. for temporary injunction restraining the non-petitioner from auctioning the said plot and dispossessing him there-from. The defendant-non-petitioner filed its reply stating that the 3/4th amount of the bid has not so far been deposited, as a result thereof the said auction has been cancelled, the petitioner has concealed the fact of filing an appeal before the Board and it was ordered on November 30, 1983 that the previous auction sale will continue if he deposits 3/4th amount of bid along with interest @ 15 percent within 15 days and despite it the amount was not deposited. It has also been averred that the possession of the suit plot was never given to the petitioner and lie has illegally put his cabin on a part of it. After hearing the parties, the learned Munsif rejected the application for temporary injunction by its order dated December 23, 1988. Appeal was preferred and it was dismissed by the learned Civil Judge, Balotra as said above.

(3.) It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the learned lower Courts have seriously erred in holding that the plaintiff- petitioner has no prima facie case, the balance of convenience is not in his favour and he will not suffer any irreparable injury. He further contended that the time was not the essence of the contract which took place in between the parties and this aspect of the case was not properly considered. He also contended that the trial Court by its order has in fact finally decided the suit at the interlocutory stage. He lastly contended that the petitioner is in possession of the disputed land, he has raised boundary wall and has put 'Chhappar' with the non-petitioner's tactics consent. He relied upon Government of Andhra Pradesh v. Valluri Keshava Rao, 1982 2 SCC 134, Govind Prasad Chaturvedi v. Haridutt Shastri, 1977 AIR(SC) 1005 and Pyarelal Gupta v. H. H. Maharaja Shri Karni Singhji,1960 0 RLR 645.