The trial Court while dismissing the appellants application for temporary injunction, passed the following order The plaintiff appellant application for grant of Temporary injunction restraining the defendants or its officials or other person acting on its behalf in number cancelling the suit plot vide letter dated 11 9 90 and further to restrain them from auctioning the suit plot No.
However, in spite of the extended time, he companyld number deposit and hence his allotment was cancelled through letter dated 11 9 1990.
Hence the appellant filed the suit for declaration and permanent injunction and also for setting aside of the cancellation order dated 11 9 1990.
While disposing of the same, the trial Court also dismissed the suit itself.
Hence, he filed the present appeal.
The submission is that on or before this date, neither any issue was framed number any evidences were led, hence the Court should number have dismissed the whole suit.
The present proceedings are initiated through a suit by the appellant who was the highest bidder in an auction and who was to deposit within the stipulated time a sum of Rs.
It held since numberdecree was passed, numberappeal lie against it.
Having heard learned Counsel for the parties, we find that the trial Court only took up to decide the application for temporary injunction number the suit itself.
The grievance of the appellant is that the trial Court illegally while disposing of the application for the temporary injunction, dismissed the suit itself.
Against that, he filed the second appeal and the High Court also failed to companysider this question and dismissed the second appeal on the ground that numbersubstantial question of law is involved.
Aggrieved by this, the appellant filed an appeal but the Appellate Court dismissed the same.
10 A. Sakkardara, Ayurvedic Layout is hereby rejected.
The Plaintiffs suit is also stand dismissed.
7,75,000/ .
