AGARWAL AND CO Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a plaintiff's revision against the order of the learned Addl. District Judge No. 1, Hanumangarh dismissing his appeal against the order of the learned Civil Judge, Hanumangarh dated 3. 7. 84, dismissing the application under O. XXXIX rules 1 and 2 C. P. C.

(2.) THE facts giving rise to this revision briefly stated are that the plaintiff-applicant filed a suit for specific performance of a contract as also for permanent injunction against the defendants-respondents. THE case of the plaintiff was that the brick-kiln was auctioned on 15. 11. 79, where at the highest bid of Rs. 9000/- was of the plaintiff and he deposited the 1/4th amount of the bid, viz. , Rs. 2250/- at the spot. THE remaining amount was to be paid when the bid was to be sanctioned by the Collector under rule 9 of the Rajasthan Colonisation (Project Area) Brick Kiln (leases) Conditions, 1966. It was further alleged that for a long time he did not receive any intimation about the sanction of the lease by the Collector. Ultimately it appears that the lease was sanctioned on 27. 9. 80 but no intimation of this sanction was ever sent to the plaintiff and, there fore, he could not deposit the remaining amount in time. Later, on 31. 8. 82 the Tehsildar concerned gave him a notice intimating that as he has failed to deposit the outstanding amount the 1/4th amount deposited by him was forfeited and if he had any objection to this, he should appear and make the same. It further appears that thereafter the brick-kiln was put to auction again on 29. 7. 82. It is not disputed that along with other persons, the present petitioner also gave bid at this auction. THEn in June, 1983 the plaintiff filed a suit for injunction restraining the authorities concerned from re-auctioning the brick-kiln and in that suit he applied for grant of temporary injunction which was refused by the trial court on 4. 6. 83 and this order was maintained in appeal as well as in revision by the orders dated 17. 1. 84 and 6. 3. 84

(3.) I have given my careful consideration to this contention. Before I come to the question raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it may be stated at the out set that both the courts below have considered the three ingredients necessary for the grant or refusal of temporary injunction and have found all the three to be against the plaintiff. Sitting in revision I do not feel persuaded to take a different view.