M.M. Kumar, J. - (1.)THIS revision petition is directed against the order dated 24.11.2001 passed by the Additional District Judge, Kamal accepting the appeal of the defendant -respondent against the order dated 7.6.2000 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division) Karnal. The Civil Judge has allowed the application of the plaintiff -petitioners filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for brevity 'the Code').
(2.)THE facts necessary for deciding the controversy in issue are that the plaintiff -petitioners filed a suit for mandatory/permanent injunction seeking a direction to the defendant -respondent to supply pure drinking water for human consumption and for animals at five public places in the New Grain Market and to make available sewerage system, drainage system and also to provide other facilities like street lights in the Grain Market/Additional Grain Market. The further prayer was to get Hadda Rori shifted from the back side of certain shops. Host of other reliefs have also been prayed for with an additional prayer that after the various facilities were provided, the defendant -respondent be directed to reschedule the payment of the six monthly instalments in respect of the shops and booths purchased by the plaintiff -petitioners. Relief of permanent injunction has also been prayed that defendant -respondent be restrained from recovering from the plaintiff -petitioners the first instalment due w.e.f. 1.1.2000 and subsequently five instalments alongwith interest @ 15 percent plus 4 percent penal interest p.a. and also restraining the defendant -respondent from canceling the allotment of the plaintiff -petitioners of their respective shops/booths.
Alongwith the suit an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Code was filed which was allowed by the Civil Judge on 7.6.2000. On appeal, the order of the Civil Judge was set aside by the Additional District Judge who while allowing the appeal observed that the plaintiff -petitioners were allotted plots in an open auction and they were bound to comply with the terms and conditions of the auction. The plaintiff -petitioners deposited 25 percent of the auction amount on 13.1.1999 and agreed to de -posit the balance with interest @ 15 percent per annum in six half yearly instalments. The allotment letters have been issued in the names of the petitioner -plaintiffs and the defendant -respondent had constructed pucca platforms, roads, boundary wall, flood lights over the sheds, four hand pumps etc. It has further been observed that there was no precondition contemplated in the terms and condition of the auction or the allotment letter to provide water works or sewerage etc. to the plaintiff -petitioners. The plaintiff -petitioners have deliberately violated the terms and conditions of the allotment letter. It was further observed that an amount of Rs. 16,91,000/ - has already been deposited by the defendant -respondent with the department of Public Health for sewerage purposes and the Works has already commenced. The sheds constructed by the defendant -respondent are being used for doing business of marketing of crops. The Additional district Judge has referred to the terms and conditions of the allotment letter and observed that there was no pre -condition in the allotment letter that Market Committee shall provide various facilities claimed by the allottees in the suit. On the contrary Clause 4 of the allotment letter requires that the balance sale consideration of 75 percent be paid in six half yearly instalments alongwith interest @ 15 percent per annum and compound interest in case of failure to deposit the instalment by 10th of every month @ 15 percent p.a. has been provided. The question whether an allottee can delay the payment of instalments of the price with interest on the pretext that amenities have not been provided in the area allotted to the allottee has been answered in the negative relying on a judgment of this Court in the case of Ram Kishan Gulati and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors., 1 . Against the aforementioned order passed by the additional district Judge, the plaintiff -petitioners have filed the present revision petition.

(3.)I have heard Shri Puneet Bali, advocate for the plaintiff -petitioners and Shri Rajesh Bindal, Advocate for the respondent -caveator.