HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD FIRST APPEAL No. - 687 of 2005 Court No. - 35 HON'BLE SANDEEP JAIN, J. 1. Sri Shashi Prakash Rai, learned counsel for the appellant is present. None is present for the respondents. 2. The instant appeal under Section 96 C.P.C. has been filed by the defendant-appellant against the impugned judgment and decree dated 10.05.2005 passed by Additional District Judge, Court No.11, Varanasi, whereby plaintiff's suit for the relief of permanent injunction was decreed and it was ordered that no coercive action shall be taken against the plaintiff for recovery of an amount of Rs.53,87,635/-. 3. For appreciating the controversy, it would be appropriate to note some basic features of this case. The plaintiff filed Original Suit No.11 of 2002 against the appellant and State Government with the averments that he applied for a commercial property of the appellant, which was allotted to it vide allotment order dated 22.03.1985 for consideration of Rs.7,66,140.68 paise, regarding which an earnest money Rs.1,91,535/- was initially deposited and the remaining amount was to be paid in 10 years in installments. The plaintiff defaulted, as such, his allotment was cancelled by the appellant on 12.04.2001 and the property was allotted to Pradeep Kumar Bajaj on 08.10.2001. It also appears that the plaintiff was given possession of the disputed property but since his allotment was subsequently cancelled, as such, when he did not hand over the vacant possession of the disputed property, he was dispossessed by the appellant and police authorities on 31.10.2001 and the possession was handed to subsequent allottee Pradeep Kumar Bajaj. It also appears that the subsequent allottee has deposited the Versus Counsel for Appellant(s) : Ajit Kumar Singh, Shashi Prakash Rai Counsel for Respondent(s) : Vineet Pandey Varanasi Development Authority Varanasi .....Appellant(s) Kailash Chandra Agarwal And Others .....Respondent(s) whole amount of consideration of the commercial property and a lease deed/sale deed has been executed in his favour on 24.10.2001. It also appears that no recovery certificate has been issued by the appellant against the plaintiff. This fact is also recorded in the impugned judgment of the trial court. 4. In view of the above facts and circumstances, the appeal has become infructuous since the disputed property has already been allotted to Pradeep Kumar Bajaj, who is also in possession and in his favour lease deed/sale deed has been executed by the appellant. 5. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed as infructuous. September 26, 2025 Jitendra FAPL No. 687 of 2005 2 (Sandeep Jain,J.) Digitally signed by :- JITENDRA KUMAR PATEL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad