IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 211 Maha Laxmi Agro Industries Corporation Punjab State Small CORAM: Present:- NIDHI GUPTA, J. CM-13072-C- Section 151 CPC for placing on record the subsequent events/documents by way of additional evidence. the respondent and submits application is allowed. in view of the above undisputed position, present application is allowed and Annexures A2 and A3 are taken on record. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Maha Laxmi Agro Industries Corporation Vs. State Small Industries and Export Corporation Ltd. HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Mr. Anupam Mathur, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Suvir Kumar, Advocate for the respondent. *** NIDHI GUPTA, J. -2014 This is an application under Order 41 Rule 27 read with 151 CPC for placing on record the subsequent events/documents by way of additional evidence. Notice of motion. Mr. Suvir Kumar, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of the respondent and submits that he has no objection if the present application is allowed. After going through the contents of the application and in view of the above undisputed position, present application is allowed and Annexures A2 and A3 are taken on record. Page 1 of 15 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA-3448-2010(O&M) Date of decision: 24.04.2025 ...Appellant(s) Industries and Export Corporation Ltd. ...Respondent(s) HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA , Advocate , Advocate This is an application under Order 41 Rule 27 read with 151 CPC for placing on record the subsequent events/documents Mr. Suvir Kumar, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of that he has no objection if the present After going through the contents of the application and in view of the above undisputed position, present application is allowed and Annexures A2 and A3 are taken on record. 15 SUNENA 2025.04.29 13:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document MAIN CASE judgments and decrees of the learned Courts below whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff for declaration that he be declared lessee in possession of the suit plot; and for permanent injunction restr dispossessing the plaintiff, has been dismissed by both the Courts below. 2. status before the learned trial Court i.e. the appellant as the “plaintiff” and the responden 3. plaintiff was allotted plot sq.yds. by the respondent Corporation for 99 years the plaintiff vide letterNo. P.S.S.I.C./C.E/6850 dated 3. and conditions of allotment, plaintiff was required to make payment of 20% of the amount within necessary payments despite several notices. As such allotment of the plaintiff was cancelled. 17.3.98 by the court of Civil Judge, Moga, wherein the possession of the plaintiff was upheld. Subsequently, on (Ex.P15) in newspaper Punjab Kesari Jalandhar vide which certain The plaintiff is in second appeal against the concurrent judgments and decrees of the learned Courts below whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff for declaration that he be declared lessee in possession of the suit plot; and for permanent injunction restr dispossessing the plaintiff, has been dismissed by both the Courts below. The parties shall hereinafter be referred to as per their status before the learned trial Court i.e. the appellant as the “plaintiff” and the respondent as the “defendant”. Brief facts of the case as set out in the plaint, plaintiff was allotted plot no.10-B, Focal Point, Moga, measuring 4166.66 the respondent Corporation vide its letter dated for an amount of ₹83,335/–. The the plaintiff vide letterNo. P.S.S.I.C./C.E/6850 dated 3. and conditions of allotment, plaintiff was required to make payment of 20% of the amount within 30 days. However, plaintiff failed to make the necessary payments despite several notices. As such allotment of the plaintiff was cancelled. A civil Suit No. 530 of 26.11.97 was decided on 17.3.98 by the court of Civil Judge, Moga, wherein the possession of the aintiff was upheld. Arbitration proceeding was decided against defendant. Subsequently, on 10/13.9.1997 defendant-Corporation in newspaper Punjab Kesari Jalandhar vide which certain The plaintiff is in second appeal against the concurrent judgments and decrees of the learned Courts below whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff for declaration that he be declared lessee in possession of the suit plot; and for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from dispossessing the plaintiff, has been dismissed by both the Courts below. The parties shall hereinafter be referred to as per their status before the learned trial Court i.e. the appellant as the “plaintiff” and as set out in the plaint, are that B, Focal Point, Moga, measuring 4166.66 vide its letter dated 19.5.78 on lease The possession was delivered to the plaintiff vide letterNo. P.S.S.I.C./C.E/6850 dated 3.6.78. As per terms and conditions of allotment, plaintiff was required to make payment of 20% However, plaintiff failed to make the necessary payments despite several notices. As such allotment of the A civil Suit No. 530 of 26.11.97 was decided on 17.3.98 by the court of Civil Judge, Moga, wherein the possession of the Arbitration proceeding was decided against defendant. Corporation gave advertisement in newspaper Punjab Kesari Jalandhar vide which certain 15 The plaintiff is in second appeal against the concurrent judgments and decrees of the learned Courts below whereby the suit filed by the plaintiff for declaration that he be declared lessee in possession of the defendant from The parties shall hereinafter be referred to as per their status before the learned trial Court i.e. the appellant as the “plaintiff” and that B, Focal Point, Moga, measuring 4166.66 on lease possession was delivered to As per terms and conditions of allotment, plaintiff was required to make payment of 20% However, plaintiff failed to make the necessary payments despite several notices. As such allotment of the A civil Suit No. 530 of 26.11.97 was decided on 17.3.98 by the court of Civil Judge, Moga, wherein the possession of the Arbitration proceeding was decided against defendant. gave advertisement in newspaper Punjab Kesari Jalandhar vide which certain SUNENA 2025.04.29 13:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document relaxations were given to the defaulters. In advertisement plaintiff gave a telegram to the defendant on 16.9.97 requesting the defendant to B and that he was ready to deposit the same. After that again letters were issued to defendan defendant corporation was made but all in vain. Plaintiff also made several visits to the responsible officers but they with mala allow the plaintiff to avail the opportunity/ facili vide advertisement dated 13.9.1997. Defendant filed a petition under Public Premises Act against the plaintiff in the court of S.D.M. Moga was decided Ferozepur was illegal, null and void and against principles. always remained ready and willing and still ready and willing to make the entire payment, possession in pursuance of the order dated 24.2.1995 but defendants are threatening plaintiff to dispossess him forcibly. Plaintiff requested the defendant not to take law into in his own hands but all in vain, hence present Civil Suit was 4. and resisted the suit by filing written statement inter alia submitting therein that the plaintiff was in unauthorized possession of the plot in dispute which is a public premise. relaxations were given to the defaulters. In advertisement plaintiff gave a telegram to the defendant on 16.9.97 the defendant to convey what are B and that he was ready to deposit the same. After that again letters were defendants' personal representation to the Chairman of the defendant corporation was made but all in vain. Plaintiff also made several visits to the responsible officers but they with mala allow the plaintiff to avail the opportunity/ facili vide advertisement dated 13.9.1997. Defendant filed a petition under Public Premises Act against the plaintiff in the court of S.D.M. Moga was decided ex parte on 24.2.1995. Appeal pending before Commissioner Ferozepur was illegal, null and void and against principles. always remained ready and willing and still ready and willing to make the payment, and he is not liable to be ejected b possession in pursuance of the order dated 24.2.1995 but defendants are threatening plaintiff to dispossess him forcibly. Plaintiff requested the defendant not to take law into in his own hands but all in vain, hence present Civil Suit was filed on 01.06.1999. Upon notice, the defendant and resisted the suit by filing written statement inter alia submitting therein that the plaintiff was in unauthorized possession of the plot in dispute which is a public premise. The defendant filed a pe relaxations were given to the defaulters. In pursuance of the said advertisement plaintiff gave a telegram to the defendant on 16.9.97 what are the dues against plot No. 10- B and that he was ready to deposit the same. After that again letters were personal representation to the Chairman of the defendant corporation was made but all in vain. Plaintiff also made several visits to the responsible officers but they with mala fide intention did not allow the plaintiff to avail the opportunity/ facility granted to the defaulter vide advertisement dated 13.9.1997. Defendant filed a petition under Public Premises Act against the plaintiff in the court of S.D.M. Moga which parte on 24.2.1995. Appeal pending before Commissioner Ferozepur was illegal, null and void and against principles. The plaintiff always remained ready and willing and still ready and willing to make the and he is not liable to be ejected being a lessee in possession in pursuance of the order dated 24.2.1995 but defendants are threatening plaintiff to dispossess him forcibly. Plaintiff requested the defendant not to take law into in his own hands but all in vain, hence Upon notice, the defendant-Corporation had appeared and resisted the suit by filing written statement inter alia submitting therein that the plaintiff was in unauthorized possession of the plot in The defendant filed a petition under 15 pursuance of the said advertisement plaintiff gave a telegram to the defendant on 16.9.97 - B and that he was ready to deposit the same. After that again letters were personal representation to the Chairman of the defendant corporation was made but all in vain. Plaintiff also made several fide intention did not ty granted to the defaulter vide advertisement dated 13.9.1997. Defendant filed a petition under which parte on 24.2.1995. Appeal pending before Commissioner plaintiff always remained ready and willing and still ready and willing to make the eing a lessee in possession in pursuance of the order dated 24.2.1995 but defendants are threatening plaintiff to dispossess him forcibly. Plaintiff requested the defendant not to take law into in his own hands but all in vain, hence Corporation had appeared and resisted the suit by filing written statement inter alia submitting therein that the plaintiff was in unauthorized possession of the plot in tition under SUNENA 2025.04.29 13:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Section 5 and 7 of the Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act 1973 in the court of S.D.M. exercising the powers of Collector, Moga, and it was allowed by the Collector vide order dated 24.2.1995. Plaintiff filed an appeal be was pointed out 15.10.97 where the opportunity to deposit the money was granted to defaulter but barred by principle of res judicata because another Civil Suit filed by the plaintiff on the same subject matter has already been decided by the Civil Judge (Junior Division) Moga vide judgment and decree sheet dated 17.3.1998. On merits, it possession given sheet dated time it was ordered that defendant Corporation would be at liberty to secure his ejectment by taking due process of law. Then the proceedings for ejectment of the plaintiff was initiated wherein Joint Secretary, Industries-cum cancellation of the allotment. It is submitted proceedings against the plaintiff and it was allowed in favor of the defendant. The remaining averments of the plaint submitted that suit of the plaintiff is without merit and is liable to be dismissed. Section 5 and 7 of the Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act 1973 in the court of S.D.M. exercising the powers of Collector, Moga, and it was allowed by the Collector vide order dated 95. Plaintiff filed an appeal before Commissioner Ferozepur also. It was pointed out that even the date for payment 15.10.97 where the opportunity to deposit the money was granted to defaulter but the plaintiff failed to deposit the amount due from him. Suit is by principle of res judicata because another Civil Suit filed by the plaintiff on the same subject matter has already been decided by the Civil Judge (Junior Division) Moga vide judgment and decree sheet dated 17.3.1998. On merits, it was admitted that possession given to plaintiff. It is admitted that vide judgment and decree 17.3.1998 possession of plaintiff was upheld. But at the same time it was ordered that defendant Corporation would be at liberty to e his ejectment by taking due process of law. Then the proceedings for ejectment of the plaintiff was initiated wherein Joint Secretary, cum-Arbitrator gave his Award dated 5.11.1981 and upheld the cancellation of the allotment. It is submitted proceedings against the plaintiff and it was allowed in favor of the defendant. The remaining averments of the plaint submitted that suit of the plaintiff is without merit and is liable to be Section 5 and 7 of the Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act 1973 in the court of S.D.M. exercising the powers of Collector, Moga, and it was allowed by the Collector vide order dated fore Commissioner Ferozepur also. It for payment was extended up to 15.10.97 where the opportunity to deposit the money was granted to the amount due from him. Suit is by principle of res judicata because another Civil Suit filed by the plaintiff on the same subject matter has already been decided by the Civil Judge (Junior Division) Moga vide judgment and decree sheet dated admitted that plot No. B-10 was allotted and to plaintiff. It is admitted that vide judgment and decree 17.3.1998 possession of plaintiff was upheld. But at the same time it was ordered that defendant Corporation would be at liberty to e his ejectment by taking due process of law. Then the proceedings for ejectment of the plaintiff was initiated wherein Joint Secretary, ward dated 5.11.1981 and upheld the cancellation of the allotment. It is submitted that defendant filed eviction proceedings against the plaintiff and it was allowed in favor of the defendant. The remaining averments of the plaint were denied and submitted that suit of the plaintiff is without merit and is liable to be 15 Section 5 and 7 of the Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act 1973 in the court of S.D.M. exercising the powers of Collector, Moga, and it was allowed by the Collector vide order dated fore Commissioner Ferozepur also. It to 15.10.97 where the opportunity to deposit the money was granted to the amount due from him. Suit is by principle of res judicata because another Civil Suit filed by the plaintiff on the same subject matter has already been decided by the Civil Judge (Junior Division) Moga vide judgment and decree sheet dated and to plaintiff. It is admitted that vide judgment and decree 17.3.1998 possession of plaintiff was upheld. But at the same time it was ordered that defendant Corporation would be at liberty to e his ejectment by taking due process of law. Then the proceedings for ejectment of the plaintiff was initiated wherein Joint Secretary, ward dated 5.11.1981 and upheld the that defendant filed eviction proceedings against the plaintiff and it was allowed in favor of the denied and submitted that suit of the plaintiff is without merit and is liable to be SUNENA 2025.04.29 13:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 5. averments made in the plaint were reiterated and those made in the written statement were denied. 6. were framed for?OPP. 7. evidence adduced and 2 against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendant the defendant; issue No.4 against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendant and accordingly, vide judgment and decree dated learned trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. plaintiff was dismis costs of Rs.5,000/ judgment and decree under appeal was upheld. appeal by the plaintiff. Replication was filed by the plaintiff wherein the averments made in the plaint were reiterated and those made in the written statement were denied. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the learned trial Court:- “1. Whether plaintiff is entitled to declaration as prayed for?OPP. 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to permanent injunction as prayed for?OPP. 3. Whether this court has no jurisdiction to try this suit?OPD. 4. Whether the suit is barred by principal of 5. Relief.” On the basis of pleadings and oral & documentary evidence adduced by the parties, learned trial Court decided issues No.1 against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendant the defendant; issue No.4 against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendant and accordingly, vide judgment and decree dated learned trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. plaintiff was dismissed by the learned lower Appellate Court with special costs of Rs.5,000/- vide judgment and decree dated 21.04.2010; and judgment and decree under appeal was upheld. appeal by the plaintiff. plication was filed by the plaintiff wherein the averments made in the plaint were reiterated and those made in the On the basis of pleadings of the parties, following issues Whether plaintiff is entitled to declaration as prayed 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to permanent injunction as 3. Whether this court has no jurisdiction to try this suit?OPD. 4. Whether the suit is barred by principal of res judicata? OPD pleadings and oral & documentary by the parties, learned trial Court decided issues No.1 against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendant; issue No.3 against the defendant; issue No.4 against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendant and accordingly, vide judgment and decree dated 16.01.2008, learned trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff.Appeal filed by the sed by the learned lower Appellate Court with special vide judgment and decree dated 21.04.2010; and judgment and decree under appeal was upheld. Hence, present second 15 plication was filed by the plaintiff wherein the averments made in the plaint were reiterated and those made in the On the basis of pleadings of the parties, following issues Whether plaintiff is entitled to declaration as prayed 2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to permanent injunction as pleadings and oral & documentary by the parties, learned trial Court decided issues No.1 ; issue No.3 against the defendant; issue No.4 against the plaintiff and in favour of the , Appeal filed by the sed by the learned lower Appellate Court with special vide judgment and decree dated 21.04.2010; and Hence, present second SUNENA 2025.04.29 13:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 8. appellant/plaintiff that in pursuance to the advertisement the appellant had sent a telegram dated 16.09.1997 Corporation expressing his readiness and willingness to make the entire payment and praying that he is not liable to be ejected being a lessee in possession of the disputed plot. counsel for the plai the appellant was that he be granted a decree for declaration that in view of the policy of the respondent appellant was ready and willing to deposit the en he could not be ejected in pursuance of the order dated 24.02.1995. The appellant led overwhelming documentary as well as oral evidence to show that he has been requesting time and again to the respondent to intimate hi and allotment is regularised. However, the respondent illegal and mala fide manner did not intimate the total amount due and instead kept the matter pending which necessitated the f suit. The learned Courts below, thus, have ignored the overwhelming documentary evidence which fact has occasioned failure of justice to the appellant. 9. respondent authori It is submitted by learned counsel fo appellant/plaintiff that in pursuance to the advertisement the appellant had sent a telegram dated 16.09.1997 Corporation expressing his readiness and willingness to make the entire payment and praying that he is not liable to be ejected being a lessee in possession of the disputed plot. It is repeatedly submitted by learned counsel for the plaintiff that in the present case, the precise relief sought by the appellant was that he be granted a decree for declaration that in view of the policy of the respondent-Corporation dated 13.09.1997 appellant was ready and willing to deposit the en he could not be ejected in pursuance of the order dated 24.02.1995. The appellant led overwhelming documentary as well as oral evidence to show that he has been requesting time and again to the respondent to intimate him the outstanding amount so that the amount is deposited and allotment is regularised. However, the respondent illegal and mala fide manner did not intimate the total amount due and instead kept the matter pending which necessitated the f suit. The learned Courts below, thus, have ignored the overwhelming documentary evidence which fact has occasioned failure of justice to the Learned counsel for the plaintiff further submits that the respondent authorities have restored the allotment made to the appellant It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff that in pursuance to the advertisement dated 13.9.1997, the appellant had sent a telegram dated 16.09.1997 to the respondent- Corporation expressing his readiness and willingness to make the entire payment and praying that he is not liable to be ejected being a lessee in It is repeatedly submitted by learned in the present case, the precise relief sought by the appellant was that he be granted a decree for declaration that in view Corporation dated 13.09.1997 since the appellant was ready and willing to deposit the entire outstanding amount, he could not be ejected in pursuance of the order dated 24.02.1995. The appellant led overwhelming documentary as well as oral evidence to show that he has been requesting time and again to the respondent-Corporation m the outstanding amount so that the amount is deposited and allotment is regularised. However, the respondent-Corporation in an illegal and mala fide manner did not intimate the total amount due and instead kept the matter pending which necessitated the filing of the present suit. The learned Courts below, thus, have ignored the overwhelming documentary evidence which fact has occasioned failure of justice to the Learned counsel for the plaintiff further submits that the ties have restored the allotment made to the appellant 15 r the , - Corporation expressing his readiness and willingness to make the entire payment and praying that he is not liable to be ejected being a lessee in It is repeatedly submitted by learned in the present case, the precise relief sought by the appellant was that he be granted a decree for declaration that in view since the tire outstanding amount, he could not be ejected in pursuance of the order dated 24.02.1995. The appellant led overwhelming documentary as well as oral evidence to show Corporation m the outstanding amount so that the amount is deposited Corporation in an illegal and mala fide manner did not intimate the total amount due and iling of the present suit. The learned Courts below, thus, have ignored the overwhelming documentary evidence which fact has occasioned failure of justice to the Learned counsel for the plaintiff further submits that the ties have restored the allotment made to the appellant SUNENA 2025.04.29 13:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document vide letter dated 02.05.2012 (Annexure A2) in terms of the new Policy and on deposit of the entire outstanding amount as claimed by the respondent authorities. In pursuanc dated 21.12.2012 (Annexure A3) has been passed of the plot in favour of the plaintiff however, subject to payment of dues calculated in terms of new Policy (Annexure A2) that as the Corporation to intimate him the outstanding amount so that he may deposit the said amount in pursuance to advertisement dated 13.09.1997 the plaintiff is entitled to, and may be permitted terms of advertisement dated 13.09.1997 2012. 10. opposed by learned counsel for the defendant that it is writ large on the record of the case that the plaintiff was afforded several and numerous opportunities by the defendant the outstanding dues. However, the needful was not done by the plaintiff for years together. plaintiff has been restored to him however, the restoration should be in terms of the lat been led by the plaintiff to show that any communications were made by him to the Department for payment of outstanding d vide letter dated 02.05.2012 (Annexure A2) in terms of the new Policy and on deposit of the entire outstanding amount as claimed by the respondent authorities. In pursuanc dated 21.12.2012 (Annexure A3) has been passed of the plot in favour of the plaintiff however, subject to payment of dues calculated in terms of new Policy (Annexure A2) that as the plaintiff had made numerous requests to the respondent Corporation to intimate him the outstanding amount so that he may deposit the said amount in pursuance to advertisement dated 13.09.1997 is entitled to, and may be permitted terms of advertisement dated 13.09.1997, and not The said submissions on behalf of the plaintiff are opposed by learned counsel for the defendant that it is writ large on the record of the case that the plaintiff was afforded several and numerous opportunities by the defendant the outstanding dues. However, the needful was not done by the plaintiff for years together. It is further admitted on instructions that plaintiff has been restored to him however, the restoration should be in terms of the latest Scheme. It is further pointed out that no evidence has been led by the plaintiff to show that any communications were made by him to the Department for payment of outstanding d vide letter dated 02.05.2012 (Annexure A2) on payment of dues calculated in terms of the new Policy and on deposit of the entire outstanding amount as claimed by the respondent authorities. In pursuance to which, final order dated 21.12.2012 (Annexure A3) has been passed, restoring the allotment of the plot in favour of the plaintiff however, subject to payment of dues calculated in terms of new Policy (Annexure A2). Learned counsel submits plaintiff had made numerous requests to the respondent- Corporation to intimate him the outstanding amount so that he may deposit the said amount in pursuance to advertisement dated 13.09.1997, is entitled to, and may be permitted to pay outstanding dues in , and not as per the new Policy of The said submissions on behalf of the plaintiff are opposed by learned counsel for the defendant-Corporation who submits that it is writ large on the record of the case that the plaintiff was afforded several and numerous opportunities by the defendant-Corporation to clear the outstanding dues. However, the needful was not done by the plaintiff It is further admitted on instructions that plot of the plaintiff has been restored to him however, the restoration should be in est Scheme. It is further pointed out that no evidence has been led by the plaintiff to show that any communications were made by him to the Department for payment of outstanding dues. The plaintiff has 15 on payment of dues calculated in terms of the new Policy and on deposit of the entire outstanding amount e to which, final order , restoring the allotment of the plot in favour of the plaintiff however, subject to payment of dues . Learned counsel submits - Corporation to intimate him the outstanding amount so that he may , anding dues in the new Policy of The said submissions on behalf of the plaintiff are Corporation who submits that it is writ large on the record of the case that the plaintiff was afforded poration to clear the outstanding dues. However, the needful was not done by the plaintiff plot of the plaintiff has been restored to him however, the restoration should be in est Scheme. It is further pointed out that no evidence has been led by the plaintiff to show that any communications were made by has SUNENA 2025.04.29 13:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document failed to demonstrate his readiness and willingness. accordingly prays for dismissal of the present appeal. 11. 12. the case file in great detail. 13. as Industrial Plot No.10B situated at Focal Point Moga was allotted to the plaintiff vide Allotment Order dated 19.05.1978 (Ex.P4) for a sum of Rs.83,335/-. As per the conditions of the Allotment Letter, the plaintiff was to deposit 20% of the premium price of the plot within 30 days i.e. Rs.16,667/-. Rs.5,667/-. Plaintiff was to Ex.P9 to make the payment due, however, to no avail the plaintiff filed a Civil Suit No.530 dated 26.11.1997 injunction that the defendant be restrained from dispossessing the plaintiff. Vide judgment and decree dated 17.03.1 decreed. However, upon the order of cancellation but passed a decree that the plaintiff would not be dispossessed from the suit property except in due course of law. 14. of the premium price, his allotment was cancelled by the defendant Corporation vide registered letter dated 29.09.1978 (Ex.D6). failed to demonstrate his readiness and willingness. accordingly prays for dismissal of the present appeal. No other argument is made on behalf of the parties. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file in great detail. Brief facts of the case are that the suit plot describable as Industrial Plot No.10B situated at Focal Point Moga was allotted to the plaintiff vide Allotment Order dated 19.05.1978 (Ex.P4) for a sum of . As per the conditions of the Allotment Letter, the plaintiff was o deposit 20% of the premium price of the plot within 30 days i.e. However, admittedly, the plaintiff deposited only about Plaintiff was issued various notices by the to make the payment due, however, to no avail the plaintiff filed a Civil Suit No.530 dated 26.11.1997 injunction that the defendant be restrained from dispossessing the plaintiff. judgment and decree dated 17.03.1998 However, in the said suit the court upon the order of cancellation but passed a decree that the plaintiff would not be dispossessed from the suit property except in due course of law. Accordingly, as the plaintiff of the premium price, his allotment was cancelled by the defendant Corporation vide registered letter dated 29.09.1978 (Ex.D6). failed to demonstrate his readiness and willingness. Learned counsel accordingly prays for dismissal of the present appeal. No other argument is made on behalf of the parties. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused e that the suit plot describable as Industrial Plot No.10B situated at Focal Point Moga was allotted to the plaintiff vide Allotment Order dated 19.05.1978 (Ex.P4) for a sum of . As per the conditions of the Allotment Letter, the plaintiff was o deposit 20% of the premium price of the plot within 30 days i.e. However, admittedly, the plaintiff deposited only about issued various notices by the defendant being Ex.P4 to make the payment due, however, to no avail. In the meantime, the plaintiff filed a Civil Suit No.530 dated 26.11.1997 seeking permanent injunction that the defendant be restrained from dispossessing the plaintiff. 998 the suit of the plaintiff was the said suit the court did not express any opinion upon the order of cancellation but passed a decree that the plaintiff would not be dispossessed from the suit property except in due course of law. the plaintiff had still failed to deposit 20% of the premium price, his allotment was cancelled by the defendant- Corporation vide registered letter dated 29.09.1978 (Ex.D6). Thereupon, the 15 Learned counsel I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused e that the suit plot describable as Industrial Plot No.10B situated at Focal Point Moga was allotted to the plaintiff vide Allotment Order dated 19.05.1978 (Ex.P4) for a sum of . As per the conditions of the Allotment Letter, the plaintiff was o deposit 20% of the premium price of the plot within 30 days i.e. However, admittedly, the plaintiff deposited only about being Ex.P4 In the meantime, seeking permanent injunction that the defendant be restrained from dispossessing the plaintiff. the suit of the plaintiff was any opinion upon the order of cancellation but passed a decree that the plaintiff would failed to deposit 20% - reupon, the SUNENA 2025.04.29 13:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document plaintiff moved for arbitration dated 05.11.1981 (Ex.D7) Industries-cum Thereafter, the defendant filed a petition under Sections 5 and 7 of the Public Premises Act before the Sub also allowed vide order dated 24.02.1995 (Ex.D15). 15. dated 13.9.1997, permitting defaulters to make the payment of dues 30.9.1997. Instead of making the payment even at this stage, the plainti instead filed possession of the suit plot; and for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from dispossessing the of the plaintiff was not maintainable previously also filedCivil Suit No.530 dated 26.11.1997 seeking permanent injunction in respect of the present suit plot sought by the plaintiff plot, could not be given as allotment of the stood cancelled been challenged by the plaintiff. 16. plaintiff had filed an application under Order was allowed by the learned trial court vide order dated 10.8.1999. plaintiff moved for arbitration; in which proceedings dated 05.11.1981 (Ex.D7) was passed against the plaintiff by Joint Secretary, cum-Arbitrator and cancellation of allotment was upheld. Thereafter, the defendant filed a petition under Sections 5 and 7 of the Premises Act before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Moga which was allowed vide order dated 24.02.1995 (Ex.D15). In the meantime, the defendant issued advertisement dated 13.9.1997, permitting defaulters to make the payment of dues Instead of making the payment even at this stage, the plainti instead filed the present suit on 1.6.1999 praying for declaration as possession of the suit plot; and for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from dispossessing the plaintiff. First and foremost, present suit of the plaintiff was not maintainable as undisputedly. The plaintiff had previously also filedCivil Suit No.530 dated 26.11.1997 seeking permanent injunction in respect of the present suit plot sought by the plaintiff in the present suit, as Le could not be given as allotment of the stood cancelled vide order dated 29.09.1978 (Ex.D6), nged by the plaintiff. It may also be pointed out that in the present suit plaintiff had filed an application under Order was allowed by the learned trial court vide order dated 10.8.1999. Page 9 of 15 proceedings Arbitration Award was passed against the plaintiff by Joint Secretary, Arbitrator and cancellation of allotment was upheld. Thereafter, the defendant filed a petition under Sections 5 and 7 of the Divisional Magistrate, Moga which was allowed vide order dated 24.02.1995 (Ex.D15). the meantime, the defendant issued advertisement dated 13.9.1997, permitting defaulters to make the payment of dues by Instead of making the payment even at this stage, the plaintiff praying for declaration as lessee in possession of the suit plot; and for permanent injunction restraining the First and foremost, present suit as undisputedly. The plaintiff had previously also filedCivil Suit No.530 dated 26.11.1997 seeking permanent injunction in respect of the present suit plot. Moreover, the declaration as Lessee in possession of the suit could not be given as allotment of the suit plot to the plaintiff already dated 29.09.1978 (Ex.D6), which order has never It may also be pointed out that in the present suit the plaintiff had filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC which was allowed by the learned trial court vide order dated 10.8.1999. Civil 15 Arbitration Award was passed against the plaintiff by Joint Secretary, Arbitrator and cancellation of allotment was upheld. Thereafter, the defendant filed a petition under Sections 5 and 7 of the Divisional Magistrate, Moga which was the meantime, the defendant issued advertisement by ff lessee in possession of the suit plot; and for permanent injunction restraining the First and foremost, present suit as undisputedly. The plaintiff had previously also filedCivil Suit No.530 dated 26.11.1997 seeking permanent laration in possession of the suit to the plaintiff already s never the which Civil SUNENA 2025.04.29 13:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Appeal No.24 of learned District Judge, Faridkot vide order dated 27.11.2002. Civil Revision No.1154 of 2003 filed by the defendant this Court was accepted and 10.8.1999 was set aside. read as follows: order passed on an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 filed by the plaintiff in question. Moga measuring 4166.66 sq. yards on 3.2.1978. However, the allotment of plot allotted to the plaintiff was can 29.09.1978. The plaintiff earlier filed a suit for permanent injunction for restraining the defendant from dispossessing the plaintiff from the said plot and that the cancellation of the allotment of plot is illegal and void. In the said suit the upon the order of cancellation but passed a decree that the plaintiff would not be dispossessed from the suit property except in due course of law. the effect that he is a lessee in possession of the said plot and that the said plot cannot be put to auction. In the said case, the trial court has passed an order of status quo. The appeal against the said order was dismissed as beyond the period of limitati is against the order thus passed in second suit. of ejectment against the plaintiff acting as Collector under the Punjab Appeal No.24 of 11.12.1999 filed by the defendant was dismissed by the learned District Judge, Faridkot vide order dated 27.11.2002. Civil Revision No.1154 of 2003 filed by the defendant this Court was accepted and vide order dated 26.8.200 was set aside. Said order dated 26.8.2004 passed by this Court read as follows: – “The defendant is in revision petition aggrieved against the order passed on an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 filed by plaintiff-respondent from dispossessing the plaintiff from the plot in question. The plaintiff was allotted plot No.10 Moga measuring 4166.66 sq. yards on 3.2.1978. However, the allotment of plot allotted to the plaintiff was can 29.09.1978. The plaintiff earlier filed a suit for permanent injunction for restraining the defendant from dispossessing the plaintiff from the said plot and that the cancellation of the allotment of plot is illegal and void. In the said suit the court has not expressed any opinion upon the order of cancellation but passed a decree that the plaintiff would not be dispossessed from the suit property except in due course of law. Subsequently, the plaintiff filed another suit for declaration to effect that he is a lessee in possession of the said plot and that the said plot cannot be put to auction. In the said case, the trial court has passed an order of status quo. The appeal against the said order was dismissed as beyond the period of limitati is against the order thus passed in second suit. It is pointed out that the S.D.O. (C), Moga has passed an order of ejectment against the plaintiff acting as Collector under the Punjab 11.12.1999 filed by the defendant was dismissed by the learned District Judge, Faridkot vide order dated 27.11.2002. However, the Civil Revision No.1154 of 2003 filed by the defendant-Corporation before order dated 26.8.2004, the order dated Said order dated 26.8.2004 passed by this Court The defendant is in revision petition aggrieved against the order passed on an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 filed by respondent from dispossessing the plaintiff from the plot The plaintiff was allotted plot No.10-B situated at Focal Point, Moga measuring 4166.66 sq. yards on 3.2.1978. However, the allotment of plot allotted to the plaintiff was cancelled on 29.09.1978. The plaintiff earlier filed a suit for permanent injunction for restraining the defendant from dispossessing the plaintiff from the said plot and that the cancellation of the allotment of plot is illegal court has not expressed any opinion upon the order of cancellation but passed a decree that the plaintiff would not be dispossessed from the suit property except in due course Subsequently, the plaintiff filed another suit for declaration to effect that he is a lessee in possession of the said plot and that the said plot cannot be put to auction. In the said case, the trial court has passed an order of status quo. The appeal against the said order was dismissed as beyond the period of limitation. The present revision is against the order thus passed in second suit. It is pointed out that the S.D.O. (C), Moga has passed an order of ejectment against the plaintiff acting as Collector under the Punjab 15 11.12.1999 filed by the defendant was dismissed by the However, the Corporation before order dated Said order dated 26.8.2004 passed by this Court The defendant is in revision petition aggrieved against the order passed on an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 filed by respondent from dispossessing the plaintiff from the plot B situated at Focal Point, Moga measuring 4166.66 sq. yards on 3.2.1978. However, the celled on 29.09.1978. The plaintiff earlier filed a suit for permanent injunction for restraining the defendant from dispossessing the plaintiff from the said plot and that the cancellation of the allotment of plot is illegal court has not expressed any opinion upon the order of cancellation but passed a decree that the plaintiff would not be dispossessed from the suit property except in due course Subsequently, the plaintiff filed another suit for declaration to effect that he is a lessee in possession of the said plot and that the said plot cannot be put to auction. In the said case, the trial court has passed an order of status quo. The appeal against the said order on. The present revision It is pointed out that the S.D.O. (C), Moga has passed an order of ejectment against the plaintiff acting as Collector under the Punjab SUNENA 2025.04.29 13:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Re (hereinafter referred as the Act) and therefore, the plaintiff is sought to be ejected in due process of law. It is further submitted that the order of cancellation of allotment has not been challenged by the plaintiff and thus the order court is wholly illegal and without jurisdiction and in fact against the decree passed in favour of the plaintiff on 17.3 on the basis of his po suit for declaration that he is lessee in possession is not maintainable. The plaintiff has no legal right to retain the possession of the plot which was cancelled long time back. The plaintiff can be dispos in accordance with eviction order passed by the Collector under the Act. 10.08.1999 passed by the learned trial court is set aside as the same is patently illegally causing manifest injustic petitioner. 17. another notice (Ex.P10) vide which he was directed to deposit Rs.70,883/ more being enhancement of compensation. However, the plaintiff failed to deposit the s issued to the plaintiff From the above facts, it is crystal clear that by the plaintiff enumerated abov registered letter dated 29.09.1978 (Ex.D6) Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Re (hereinafter referred as the Act) and therefore, the plaintiff is sought to be ejected in due process of law. It is further submitted that the order of cancellation of allotment has not been challenged by the plaintiff and thus the order of status quo passed by the learned trial court is wholly illegal and without jurisdiction and in fact against the decree passed in favour of the plaintiff on 17.3 The plaintiff has been granted decree for permanent injunction on the basis of his possession on 17.3.1998. Therefore, subsequently a suit for declaration that he is lessee in possession is not maintainable. The plaintiff has no legal right to retain the possession of the plot which was cancelled long time back. The plaintiff can be dispos in accordance with eviction order passed by the Collector under the Consequently, the revision is accepted and the order dated 10.08.1999 passed by the learned trial court is set aside as the same is patently illegally causing manifest injustic petitioner.” In pursuance to order of this Court, plaintiff was issued another notice (Ex.P10) vide which he was directed to deposit Rs.70,883/ more being enhancement of compensation. However, the plaintiff failed to deposit the said amount also. Ultimately, notices (Ex.D2 to Ex.D5) were issued to the plaintiff, which were also not complied with by the plaintiff From the above facts, it is crystal clear that Balance amount was never paid by the plaintiff since 1978 despite grant of enumerated above. The allotment of the plaintiff was cancelled vide registered letter dated 29.09.1978 (Ex.D6); Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery), Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred as the Act) and therefore, the plaintiff is sought to be ejected in due process of law. It is further submitted that the order of cancellation of allotment has not been challenged by the of status quo passed by the learned trial court is wholly illegal and without jurisdiction and in fact against the decree passed in favour of the plaintiff on 17.3.1998. The plaintiff has been granted decree for permanent injunction ssession on 17.3.1998. Therefore, subsequently a suit for declaration that he is lessee in possession is not maintainable. The plaintiff has no legal right to retain the possession of the plot which was cancelled long time back. The plaintiff can be dispossessed in accordance with eviction order passed by the Collector under the Consequently, the revision is accepted and the order dated 10.08.1999 passed by the learned trial court is set aside as the same is patently illegally causing manifest injustice to the defendant pursuance to order of this Court, plaintiff was issued another notice (Ex.P10) vide which he was directed to deposit Rs.70,883/- more being enhancement of compensation. However, the plaintiff failed to aid amount also. Ultimately, notices (Ex.D2 to Ex.D5) were which were also not complied with by the plaintiff. Balance amount was never paid of innumerable opportunities as allotment of the plaintiff was cancelled vide ; and upheld vide order dated 15 covery), Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred as the Act) and therefore, the plaintiff is sought to be ejected in due process of law. It is further submitted that the order of cancellation of allotment has not been challenged by the of status quo passed by the learned trial court is wholly illegal and without jurisdiction and in fact against the The plaintiff has been granted decree for permanent injunction ssession on 17.3.1998. Therefore, subsequently a suit for declaration that he is lessee in possession is not maintainable. The plaintiff has no legal right to retain the possession of the plot sessed in accordance with eviction order passed by the Collector under the Consequently, the revision is accepted and the order dated 10.08.1999 passed by the learned trial court is set aside as the same e to the defendant pursuance to order of this Court, plaintiff was issued - more being enhancement of compensation. However, the plaintiff failed to aid amount also. Ultimately, notices (Ex.D2 to Ex.D5) were . Balance amount was never paid opportunities as allotment of the plaintiff was cancelled vide order dated SUNENA 2025.04.29 13:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 24.02.1995 (Ex.D15) passed by the SDM Moga. cancellation of a the plot in dispute. 18. pursuance to relaxations were given to defaulters to the defendant to intimate to him the due amount to enable him to clear the dues. Firstly, plaintiff was very well aware of the amount due towards him. As such, if he had wanted to take benefit of the advertisement d 13.09.1997, as per which he was required to deposit the entire dues on or before 30.09.1997, there was nothing that stood in his way. Yet plaintiff had again failed to deposit the amount with the respondent Clearly, therefore, plaintiff suit plot. 19. (Ex.P1), plaintiff has been unable to point out any other document/communication made by the plaintiff to the defendant Corporation. opportunities granted to the plaintiff by the the dues and make payment of the plot in question. deposed by the defendant witnesses that despite numer time given to the plaintiff, he continued to default in payment of dues. 24.02.1995 (Ex.D15) passed by the SDM Moga. cancellation of allotment of plot, plaintiff is the plot in dispute. The only argument made by the plaintiff is that in pursuance to advertisement dated 13.09.1997 vide which certain relaxations were given to defaulters, he had made repeated representations to the defendant to intimate to him the due amount to enable him to clear Firstly, plaintiff was very well aware of the amount due towards him. As such, if he had wanted to take benefit of the advertisement d 13.09.1997, as per which he was required to deposit the entire dues on or before 30.09.1997, there was nothing that stood in his way. Yet plaintiff had again failed to deposit the amount with the respondent Clearly, therefore, plaintiff has continued to be in illegal occupation of the Moreover, except for the telegram dated 16.09.1997 (Ex.P1), plaintiff has been unable to point out any other /communication made by the plaintiff to the defendant . On the contrary, the record opportunities granted to the plaintiff by the the dues and make payment of the plot in question. deposed by the defendant witnesses that despite numer time given to the plaintiff, he continued to default in payment of dues. Page 12 of 15 24.02.1995 (Ex.D15) passed by the SDM Moga. Needless to say, after is an unauthorised occupant of The only argument made by the plaintiff is that in advertisement dated 13.09.1997 vide which certain he had made repeated representations to the defendant to intimate to him the due amount to enable him to clear Firstly, plaintiff was very well aware of the amount due towards him. As such, if he had wanted to take benefit of the advertisement dated 13.09.1997, as per which he was required to deposit the entire dues on or before 30.09.1997, there was nothing that stood in his way. Yet plaintiff had again failed to deposit the amount with the respondent-Corporation. continued to be in illegal occupation of the except for the telegram dated 16.09.1997 (Ex.P1), plaintiff has been unable to point out any other /communication made by the plaintiff to the defendant- contrary, the record is replete with notices and opportunities granted to the plaintiff by the defendant-Corporation to clear the dues and make payment of the plot in question. It has been specifically deposed by the defendant witnesses that despite numerous extensions of time given to the plaintiff, he continued to default in payment of dues. Vide 15 Needless to say, after an unauthorised occupant of The only argument made by the plaintiff is that in advertisement dated 13.09.1997 vide which certain he had made repeated representations to the defendant to intimate to him the due amount to enable him to clear Firstly, plaintiff was very well aware of the amount due towards ated 13.09.1997, as per which he was required to deposit the entire dues on or before 30.09.1997, there was nothing that stood in his way. Yet plaintiff had Corporation. Yet plaintiff had Corporation. continued to be in illegal occupation of the except for the telegram dated 16.09.1997 (Ex.P1), plaintiff has been unable to point out any other - notices and to clear It has been specifically ous extensions of Vide SUNENA 2025.04.29 13:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document letter dated 05.08.1978 (Ex.D3) Corporation In response to telegram (Ex.D5) requesting the plaintiff to deposit Rs.10,000/ had failed to do so. Even in the allotment letter, the plaintiff had been given 30 days’ time to deposit 20% of the however, the plaintiff had deposited only Rs.5,667/ 20. Court are contained in Paras 15 21.04.2010, which are as follows: letter dated 05.08.1978 (Ex.D3) Plaintiff had requested Corporation that some time be given to him for depositing the amount due. In response to which, the defendant had sent a registered letter (Ex.D4) and telegram (Ex.D5) requesting the plaintiff to deposit Rs.10,000/ had failed to do so. Even in the allotment letter, the plaintiff had been given time to deposit 20% of the premium amount i.e. Rs.16,667/ however, the plaintiff had deposited only Rs.5,667/ The relevant findings of the learned lower Appellate Court are contained in Paras 15 to 18 in judgment and decree dated , which are as follows:- “15. In this case the following facts are not in dispute (a) Industrial plot No. 10-B was allotted to the plaintiff vide allotment order Ex.P4 dated 19.5.1978 having total area of 4166.66 square yards for a sum ofRs.83,335/ (b) Plaintiff was directed to deposit 20% premium price of the plot within 30 days. (c) Plaintiff deposited only Rs. 5667/ 20% premium price. (d) Plaintiff was issued another notice Ex.P10 vide which he was directed to deposit Rs. 70,883/ of compensation by Hon'ble High Court; (e) Plaintiff failed to deposit this amount also; (f) Ultimately various notices were issued to him for deposit the 20% amount of premium price. The notices are D2 to Ex.D5. (g) When plaintiff failed to deposit 20% of the premises price his allotment was cancelled on 29.9.1978 vide registered letter Ex.D6. (h) Plaintiff moved for arbitration and arbitration award was passed against him by Joint Secretary Industries Arbitrator vide Award dated 5.11.1981/ and cancellation of allotment was upheld by the Arbitrator. Page 13 of 15 Plaintiff had requested the defendant- that some time be given to him for depositing the amount due. which, the defendant had sent a registered letter (Ex.D4) and telegram (Ex.D5) requesting the plaintiff to deposit Rs.10,000/- but plaintiff had failed to do so. Even in the allotment letter, the plaintiff had been given premium amount i.e. Rs.16,667/-, however, the plaintiff had deposited only Rs.5,667/-. The relevant findings of the learned lower Appellate in judgment and decree dated In this case the following facts are not in dispute- B was allotted to the plaintiff vide allotment order Ex.P4 dated 19.5.1978 having total area of 4166.66 square yards for a sum ofRs.83,335/-; posit 20% premium price of the (c) Plaintiff deposited only Rs. 5667/- but he failed to deposit (d) Plaintiff was issued another notice Ex.P10 vide which he was directed to deposit Rs. 70,883/- more being enhancement of compensation by Hon'ble High Court; (e) Plaintiff failed to deposit this amount also; (f) Ultimately various notices were issued to him for deposit the 20% amount of premium price. The notices are D2 to Ex.D5. (g) When plaintiff failed to deposit 20% of the premises price his allotment was cancelled on 29.9.1978 vide registered letter (h) Plaintiff moved for arbitration and arbitration award was passed against him by Joint Secretary Industries -cum rator vide Award dated 5.11.1981/ and cancellation of allotment was upheld by the Arbitrator. 15 - that some time be given to him for depositing the amount due. which, the defendant had sent a registered letter (Ex.D4) and but plaintiff had failed to do so. Even in the allotment letter, the plaintiff had been given , The relevant findings of the learned lower Appellate in judgment and decree dated B was allotted to the plaintiff vide allotment order Ex.P4 dated 19.5.1978 having total area of posit 20% premium price of the but he failed to deposit (d) Plaintiff was issued another notice Ex.P10 vide which he nt (f) Ultimately various notices were issued to him for deposit the (g) When plaintiff failed to deposit 20% of the premises price his allotment was cancelled on 29.9.1978 vide registered letter (h) Plaintiff moved for arbitration and arbitration award was cum rator vide Award dated 5.11.1981/ and cancellation of SUNENA 2025.04.29 13:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document (i) The defendant Corporation moved a petition under Sections 5 and 7 of the Act which was decided by the Collector, Moga vide order dated 24.2.1995 (Ex.D15). (j) Plaintiff filed the suit for injunction which was decreed. Defendant filed civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.24 of 11.12.1999 which was decided by learned District Judge Faridkot on 27.11.2002. (k) Defendant Corporation filed Civil Revision No. 1154 of 200 which was accepted with aforesaid observation. (l) In Civil Suit No. 432 of 1996 plaintiff M/s MahaLaxmi Agro Industries Corporation was restrained from raising construction and was further directed to demolish the structure raised on disputed plot. 16. The instant suit has been filed solely on the basis of advertisement issue by defendant corporation in various news papers such as The Tribune dated 13.9.1997 and Punjab Kesari dated 13.9.1997. However, a specific note is given beneath these advertisements that the concession are not applicable in those cancelled/ resumed allotments, where corporation having acquired possession of the plot/building thereon through due process of law. Plaintiff was very well aware with regard to the amount due towards hi benefit of that advertisement it was his duty to deposit the entire dues on or before 30.9.1997 but he failed to deposit the amount with the defendant corporation, even his allotment has already been canceled. Therefore, he can not of advertisement Ex. P17. 17. Apart from it, the allotment of the plaintif been canceled vide Ex.D6 and it can not resumed merely by depositing the amount. Besides this, the eviction order has already been issued against him 18. Apart from it, the instant suit is not maintainable. He earlier sought the remedy of injunction much after cancellation of allotment and even much after passed of order dated 24.2.1995 by the Collector. Hon'ble High Court in Civil Revisi No. 1154 of 2003 has observed that instant suit is not maintainable.” (i) The defendant Corporation moved a petition under Sections 5 and 7 of the Act which was decided by the Collector, Moga vide order dated 24.2.1995 (Ex.D15). Plaintiff filed the suit for injunction which was decreed. Defendant filed civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.24 of 11.12.1999 which was decided by learned District Judge Faridkot on (k) Defendant Corporation filed Civil Revision No. 1154 of 2003 which was accepted with aforesaid observation. In Civil Suit No. 432 of 1996 plaintiff M/s MahaLaxmi Agro Industries Corporation was restrained from raising construction further directed to demolish the structure raised on 16. The instant suit has been filed solely on the basis of advertisement issue by defendant corporation in various news papers such as The Tribune dated 13.9.1997 and Punjab Kesari dated 13.9.1997. However, a specific note is given beneath ents that the concession are not applicable in those cancelled/ resumed allotments, where corporation having acquired possession of the plot/building thereon through due process of law. Plaintiff was very well aware with regard to the amount due towards him. If he wanted to take benefit of that advertisement it was his duty to deposit the entire dues on or before 30.9.1997 but he failed to deposit the amount with the defendant corporation, even his allotment has already been canceled. Therefore, he can not take the benefit 17. Apart from it, the allotment of the plaintiff has already been canceled vide Ex.D6 and it can not resumed merely by depositing the amount. Besides this, the eviction order has already been issued against him on 24.2.1995. Apart from it, the instant suit is not maintainable. He earlier sought the remedy of injunction much after cancellation of allotment and even much after passed of order dated 24.2.1995 by the Collector. Hon'ble High Court in Civil Revision No. 1154 of 2003 has observed that instant suit is not 15 (i) The defendant Corporation moved a petition under Sections 5 and 7 of the Act which was decided by the Collector, Moga Plaintiff filed the suit for injunction which was decreed. Defendant filed civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.24 of 11.12.1999 which was decided by learned District Judge Faridkot on 3 In Civil Suit No. 432 of 1996 plaintiff M/s MahaLaxmi Agro Industries Corporation was restrained from raising construction further directed to demolish the structure raised on 16. The instant suit has been filed solely on the basis of advertisement issue by defendant corporation in various news papers such as The Tribune dated 13.9.1997 and Punjab Kesari dated 13.9.1997. However, a specific note is given beneath ents that the concession are not applicable in those cancelled/ resumed allotments, where corporation having acquired possession of the plot/building thereon through due process of law. Plaintiff was very well aware with m. If he wanted to take benefit of that advertisement it was his duty to deposit the entire dues on or before 30.9.1997 but he failed to deposit the amount with the defendant corporation, even his allotment has take the benefit has already been canceled vide Ex.D6 and it can not resumed merely by depositing the amount. Besides this, the eviction order has Apart from it, the instant suit is not maintainable. He earlier sought the remedy of injunction much after cancellation of allotment and even much after passed of order dated on No. 1154 of 2003 has observed that instant suit is not SUNENA 2025.04.29 13:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 21. totally failed to establish his bona fide in making the payment to the respondent-Corporation and has continued to be plot since 29.09.1978 the prayer of the plaintiff that he may be permitted to make payment as per the advertisement dated 13.9.1997. taken from the plaintiff as per the present prevailing rates along with interest. 22. 23. 24.04.2025 Sunena Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether reportable: From the above facts, it is clear that the plaintiff has totally failed to establish his bona fide in making the payment to the Corporation and has continued to be plot since 29.09.1978. As such, no ground whatsoever is made out to grant the prayer of the plaintiff that he may be permitted to make payment as per the advertisement dated 13.9.1997. On the contrary, payment has to be rom the plaintiff as per the present prevailing rates along with In view of the above, present appeal is Pending application(s) if any also stand(s) disposed of. Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No From the above facts, it is clear that the plaintiff has totally failed to establish his bona fide in making the payment to the Corporation and has continued to be in illegal occupation of the As such, no ground whatsoever is made out to grant the prayer of the plaintiff that he may be permitted to make payment as per On the contrary, payment has to be rom the plaintiff as per the present prevailing rates along with In view of the above, present appeal is dismissed. Pending application(s) if any also stand(s) disposed of. (Nidhi Gupta) Judge 15 From the above facts, it is clear that the plaintiff has totally failed to establish his bona fide in making the payment to the in illegal occupation of the As such, no ground whatsoever is made out to grant the prayer of the plaintiff that he may be permitted to make payment as per On the contrary, payment has to be rom the plaintiff as per the present prevailing rates along with SUNENA 2025.04.29 13:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document