K. RAMAMOORTHY ( 1 ) THIS is an application for injunction filed by the plaintiff seeking direction against defendant No. from stopping all construction activities on the property bearing No. B-19, Soami Nagar. New Delhi without a sanctioned plan. The first defendant has filed IA. 212/96 under Order 39 Rule 4 Civil Procedure Code for vacating the ad interim injunction granted by this Court. ( 2 ) THE case of the plaintiff is that one Beli Ram Khera. who was member of the plaintiff society was allotted plot No B-19on 26. 5. 1969. Hedied on 5. 12. 75. Beli Ram Khera nominated Prem Kumar Khera. There was a Will by Beli Ram Khera on 3. 11. 75 in and by which he had bequeathed his rights 111 favour of the first defendant. As per the rules and bye-laws of the Society the first defendant did not become a member of the Society and any construction that is made by her in the property, without the permission of the Society is not legal and she had also not obtained the sanction from the Municipal Authorities. Therefore, there should be an injunction restraining the first defendant from putting up any construction in the plot. The first defendant filed written statement and also reply to the application contending, inter alia, that she obtained a sanctioned plan on 21. 3. 94 and a certificate in Form "c" was issued by the M. C. D. on 27. 11. 95 wherein it has been noticed "certified that the above work has been accepted and approved on the basis of certificate of the licensed Architect/engineer/supervisor on 20. 9. 88 the Society itself had issued a certificate in the following terms :- "ownership OF PLOT B-19. SOAMINAGAR According to the Society s records, Shri Beli Ram Khera was the first owner of Plot No. B-119, in our Soami Nagar Colony. He has made his son Shri Prem Kumar Khera as his nominee. Shri Beli Ram Khera died on 5. 12. 75. Subsequently, Shri Prem Kumar Khera furnished an affidavit on 29. 3. 77 to the effect that the deceased Shri Beli Ram Khera according to his last will had changed his nomination in favour of Smt. Mahendra Kumari Sisodia. in our records, there has been no change in this since 11977 and no one else has claimed ownership or any right or interest in this plot. 3. 77 to the effect that the deceased Shri Beli Ram Khera according to his last will had changed his nomination in favour of Smt. Mahendra Kumari Sisodia. in our records, there has been no change in this since 11977 and no one else has claimed ownership or any right or interest in this plot. " ( 3 ) IN November 1977 she wrote a letter to the Society in the following terms "with reference to your letter No. B-19 dated 29. 10. 77. I would like to bring to your notice that your presumption that I am not desirous of joining the society is completely wrong. Kindly let me the formalities for joining the Society. " ( 4 ) ON 10. 7. 95 the Society wrote to the first defendant claiming additional compensation for land to the tune of Rs. 2,125. 00 and on 3. 9. 95 that amount was paid and the Secretary of the Society had issued a receipt receiving the amount from the first defendant. Therefore, the first defendant stated that by virtue of the sale deed dated 26. 5. 69 Beli Ram Khera became the absolute owner. ( 5 ) THE learned counsel for the plaintiff Mr. Rajiv Nayar contended that as per the bye-laws of the Society first defendant has not been taken as a member and unless she becomes a member she cannot put up any construction. He further contended that the building plan sanctioned had lapsed and it had not been renewed and in any event the first defendant cannot put up any construction, ( 6 ) PER contra. Mr. Mukul Rohtagi. learned senior counsel for the first defendant contended that the 1969 sale deed vested absolute title in the transferee and the Society was formed for the purpose of sharing the land acquired by the Society and once the plot had been allotted to a member the Society would cease to have any power over the member with reference to the plot. ( 7 ) IN the instant case, the first defendant in 1977 applied for membership asking for formalities and there was no reply from the Society and, therefore, it cannot be contended by the Society that the first defendant did not approach the plaintiff for becoming a member. It was contended by Mr. Rohtagi that this fact has been completely suppressed in the plaint by the plaintiff. It was contended by Mr. Rohtagi that this fact has been completely suppressed in the plaint by the plaintiff. He also contended that plans have been sanctioned and as a matter of fact the time given by the Municipal Authorities for completing the construction would expire by March 1996. The plaintiff has absolutely no right in the property and cannot Seek to interdict the first defendant from putting up any construction. ( 8 ) I am of the view that the plaintiff has not made out any prima facie case for the grant of injunction. The balance of convenience is in favour of the first defendant. By putting up the construction the plaintiff does not suffer any injury. If on the other hand, if the plaintiff succeeds ultimately this Court can pass appropriate orders safeguarding the rights of the plaintiff. If the first defendant is not allowed to put up construction and ultimately she is able to convince this Court about her case, the cost of construction will have increased many fold and she will be put to irreparable loss and hardship. Therefore, petition for injunction is dismissed and the petition filed by the first defendant is allowed. No order as to costs. S. No. 2836/95 Post the matter on 17th of July 1996 for further proceedings.