- (1.) Challenge in the present petition is to the order dated 9.10.2010 passed by the learned trial court whereby the application filed by the petitioners-plaintiffs under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC for interim relief was dismissed and the order dated 21.11.2011 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Ludhiana, upholding the order of the learned trial court.
(2.) Briefly the facts of the case are that the plaintiffs-petitioners filed a suit for permanent injunction and for declaration stating that the property bearing No. 8792, Street No. 10, New Subhash Nagar, Basti Jodhewal, Ludhiana, owned by Davinder Kumar Verma- defendantrespondent no. 1, was on rent with M/s G. N. Day Boarding High Schoolplaintiff (hereinafter to be referred as 'the School'). Defendant No. 1 had mortgaged the suit property with defendant-respondent nos. 2 and 3 against a loan. As defendant no. 1 failed to repay the loan amount, the suit property was put for sale vide auction notice dated 23.10.2006, published in Jag Bani Newspaper. The plaintiffs gave the highest bid and purchased the property from defendant nos. 2 and 3 for sum of Rs. 7,27,000/- vide agreement dated 23.11.2006. The plaintiffs paid 10% of the bid amount i.e. Rs. 72,500/- to defendant nos. 2 and 3, who agreed to sanction loan of Rs. 5,50,000/- in the name of the plaintiffs for the payment of remaining sale consideration. But defendant no. 2 failed to sanction the loan amount in favour of the plaintiffs and started threatening the plaintiffs to take forcible possession of the suit property under the garb of non-payment of remaining sale consideration. The plaintiffs are bonafide purchasers of the suit property and had always been ready and willing to make payment of remaining sale consideration if loan is sanctioned by the respondent-bank. The plaintiffs are still ready and willing to make the payment of remaining sale consideration of the suit property. Under these circumstances they had filed the suit. Along with the suit, application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC has also been filed on the ground that if injunction is not granted, the petitioners will suffer irreparable loss.
(3.) The respondent-bank filed reply to the application for interim relief. The learned court below dismissed the application for interim relief vide order dated 9.10.2010. The appeal filed against that order also met with the same fate. Now the petitioners-plaintiffs are before this court impugning the orders of the learned courts below. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that plaintiffschool is being run regularly since 31.5.2005. It has electric and telephonic connections. The petitioners are providing education to more than 200 children. Earlier the school was under the tenancy of respondent no. 1, who had taken loan from the bank. As respondent no. 1 had failed to repay the loan, the property in question was auctioned for Rs. 7,27,000/-. The petitioners had purchased it in an open auction and deposited 10% of the auction money. The respondent bank had given assurance to the plaintiffs to sanction the loan for the remaining amount. But the same was intentionally not sanctioned and the bank started threatening the plaintiffs to take forcible possession of the suit property under the garb of non-payment of remaining sale consideration. It was further submitted that the respondent-bank is considering the plaintiffs as tenants, however, their status has been changed from tenant to owner. The petitioners are ready and willing to pay the remaining sale consideration. The prayer is for grant of interim relief for the reason that they are providing service to the society for the last about 7 years while educating the future of the country. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the paper-book.;