Vivek Kumar Birla, J. - (1.) Heard Sri C.B. Yadav, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri B.S. Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Arun Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents and perused the record.
(2.) Present petition has been filed for setting aside the order dated 23.4.2008 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Allahabad in Original Suit No. 33 of 2008 and the order dated 30.4.2018 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No. 14, Allahabad in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 66 of 2018 in re Praveen Kumar Sharma vs. Allahabad Development Authority and another.
(3.) By the impugned order dated 23.4.2008, the interim injunction application filed by the plaintiff in Original Suit No. 33 of 2008 was rejected on the ground that in earlier Original Suit No. 711 of 2003 the interim injunction was granted in favour of the plaintiff and from perusal of the judgement and order of this Court as well as of the Hon'ble Apex Court, it is clear that the directions have been issued with regard to the award of thekas of public footpath etc. and since the earlier injunction was granted by the trial Court in the previous suit, there is no reason to grant the same relief in the present case. It was further noted in the impugned order that in the present suit the question of breach of contract is involved for which suitable compensation can be awarded to the petitioner. The appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the lower appellate court after considering the entire material on record as well as the provisions of Sections 38, 39, 40 and 14 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') and it was found that the petitioner is not entitled for interim injunction. It was further noticed that in the suit itself the claim of the plaintiff is that the contract was effective till 26.10.2014 and therefore, now no relief can be granted. It was further noted that the allegation that the contract was extended vide amended theka/agreement dated 11.4.2003 uptill 26.10.2024 is not admitted to the defendants and therefore, no prima facie case has been made out. The balance of convenience is not in favour of the plaintiff and since for breach of contract plaintiff can be suitably compensated, therefore, there is no irreparable injury to the plaintiff.;