JUDGMENT Kuldip Chand Sood, J.—The plaintiff New India Assurance Company Limited has filed a suit for specific performance of the agreement for the allotment of 318 sq. metres Commercial Area, First Floor, of Block No. 42, KZC Commercial Complex (hereinafter referred to as "the area in question") under 2nd Partially Self Financing Scheme in Kusumpti, Shimla vide allotment letter dated November 30, 1999 issued by H.P. Nagar Vikas Pradhikaran, Kusumpti, Shimla i.e. defendant, and for restraining the defendant from allotting, transferring and delivering the possession to anyone else except the plaintiff and for damages of Rs. 50,000. 2. The plaintiff-company is a subsidiary of General Insurance Corporation of India having its head office at Bombay and divisional office at Shimla. Defendant, H.P. Nagar Vikas Pradhikaran formerly known as "Shimla Development Authority" had floated the second partially self-financing scheme in Kusumpti Zone, Shimla-9. The plaintiff requested the defendant Pradhikaran for allotment of the area in question developed by the defendant on priority basis for opening of its office. The defendant, as per the case of the plaintiff, vide communication dated 22.7.1999 informed the plaintiff that the area in question could be allotted to the plaintiff in the first floor of Block No. 42 which was under construction at the relevant time at the rate of Rs. 1,100 per sq. metre without internal partition walls and Rs. 12,500 per sq. metre without partition walls. The plaintiff company was requested to apply on the prescribed application form alongwith 20% of the total cost as earnest money so that further action to allot the area in question could be taken by Pradhikaran. The plaintiff submitted the requisite application and deposited a sum of Rs. 6,99,600 with the defendant on 10th of September, 1999 after completing formalities. The defendant called upon the plaintiff to pay the balance amount of Rs. 27,89,400 in four monthly instalments of Rs. 6,99,600 in the following manner :— 1st quarterly instalment due as on 9.1.2000 Rs. 6,99,600 2nd quarterly instalment due as on 9.2.2000 Rs. 6,99,600 3rd quarterly instalment due as on 9.3.2000 Rs. 6,99,600 4th quarterly instalment due as on 9.4.2000 Rs. 6,99,600 3. The plaintiff accordingly deposited all the instalments before the scheduled dates and completed his part of the contract and became entitled to take possession of the area in question as stipulated in the communication of the defendant. 4. 6,99,600 3rd quarterly instalment due as on 9.3.2000 Rs. 6,99,600 4th quarterly instalment due as on 9.4.2000 Rs. 6,99,600 3. The plaintiff accordingly deposited all the instalments before the scheduled dates and completed his part of the contract and became entitled to take possession of the area in question as stipulated in the communication of the defendant. 4. The plaintiff came to know that the defendant wanted to hand over the possession of the area in question, which was to be allotted to the plaintiff, to some other institution and, therefore, requested the defendant on 28th of March, 2000 to deliver the possession of the area in question to the plaintiff and the plaintiff completed the formalities of the execution and registration of the formal lease deed. Defendant then sent a registered notice on 18th of April, 2000 but without any result. 5. It is pleaded that the plaintiff is being pressurised not to insist on the allotment of this particular area. It is the further case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff requires this area immediately for shifting its divisional office. It is also pleaded that Rs. 34,98,000 deposited with the defendant is lying blocked unnecessarily causing irreparable loss, injury and damages to the plaintiff. The plaintiff-company, it is stated that it is ready and willing to take possession, execute and register the lease deed and bear the expenses for the same and also pay any other amount which may be payable by the plaintiff in further of the allotment letter issued to it. 6. In this background, plaintiff prays for specific performance of the allotment letter dated 30th November, 1999 issued by the defendant. In default, defendant prays that Court Officer be appointed to execute and register the lease deed and to deliver the possession of the area in question. A further prayer for permanent prohibitory injunction from allotting, transferring and delivering the possession of the area in question to anyone else except the plaintiff and for damages of Rs. 50,000 and further for mesne profit for non-delivery of the premises at the rate of Rs. 50,000 per month. 7. Alongwith the suit, an application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed. 50,000 and further for mesne profit for non-delivery of the premises at the rate of Rs. 50,000 per month. 7. Alongwith the suit, an application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed. In this application, plaintiff prayed that pending disposal of the suit, the defendant respondent be restrained from allotting, transferring and delivering the possession of the area in question to anyone else and from cancelling the allotment made in favour of the plaintiff. On this application pending notice, following ex-porte orders were passed by this Court on 9th of May, 2000 :— "OMP No. 145/2000 : Heard. Notice on the above terms. Learned Counsel for the plaintiff prays that very suit of the plaintiff would be defeated if the defendant is not restrained from transferring or allotting the property subject matter of the dispute to any third party. I am satisfied that if notice of this application is to be served on the defendant the very object of this application would be defeated by delay. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of this case, the defendant respondent is restrained, interim, from transferring, allotting .or delivering the possession to any third person of commercial area of 318 sq. metres in the 1st floor of Block No. 42 at Kusumpti, as communicated to the plaintiff vide letter No. HP-NVP-Admn (b) 2nd-SFS/Commr/97-10538-39 dated 22.7.1999, except the plaintiff. This order is subject to the condition that the applicant-plaintiff shall deliver to the defendant-respondent or send to the defendant by register post, immediately copy of the: (a) application for injunction together with a copy of the affidavit filed in support of application; (b) a copy of the plaint; (c) copies of the documents on which the applicant relies; The applicant shall file an affidavit stating that the copies of the aforesaid documents have been so delivered or sent within three days from today Copy Dasti on usual terms." 8. Plaintiff moved another application praying that in the written statement and reply to the application, the defendant has submitted that the suit of the plaintiff is premature as the area in question is still under construction and the defendant has further denied that it is threatening to allot, transfer and deliver possession of the area in question to anyone else. Plaintiff moved another application praying that in the written statement and reply to the application, the defendant has submitted that the suit of the plaintiff is premature as the area in question is still under construction and the defendant has further denied that it is threatening to allot, transfer and deliver possession of the area in question to anyone else. It is stated that the construction is complete and the defendant intends to deliver the area in question to some other parties and in the interest of justice, plaintiff deserves to be put in possession of the premises as the plaintiff has paid the entire amount of consideration. 9. In reply to this application, defendant Pradhikaran admitted that the area in question is ready and the defendant is trying "to persuade the plaintiff not to insist on the claim for the building area on the up-coming building and space in Block No. 42". The persuation on behalf of the replying defendant is due to the fact that the Government of Himachal Pradesh wanted to have facilities of Information Technology Services in Shimla. Under the Chairmanship of Chief Secretary on 21.1.2000 it was decided for starting Information Technology enabled services in Shimla, that the office of the Director (F&S) will shift from "the existing Apurti Bhawan to Block No. 42 i.e. new upcoming building, where the plaintiff-applicant is staking the claim." In other words, according to the defendant, it intends to shift the office of the Food and Supply in the area in question so that the area in possession of the Director of Food and Supply is available for housing the facilities of Information Technology Services in Shimla. In these circumstances, the defendant prays for the rejection of the applications of the applicant. 10. I have heard Mr. K.D. Sood, learned Counsel for the plaintiff and Mr. V.D. Khidta, learned Counsel for the defendant. 11. The contention of Mr. Sood is that the1 defendant be issued mandatory injunction and the plaintiff be put in possession of this area so that irreparable loss is not caused to the plaintiff. Mr. Sood relying upon Dorab Cawasji Warden v. Coomi Sorab Warden and others, AIR 1990 SC 867, and submits that interlocutory relief in the form of mandatory injunction can be granted as non-grant of such relief will cause greater hardship and irreparable harm to the plaintiff as compared to the defendant. Mr. Sood relying upon Dorab Cawasji Warden v. Coomi Sorab Warden and others, AIR 1990 SC 867, and submits that interlocutory relief in the form of mandatory injunction can be granted as non-grant of such relief will cause greater hardship and irreparable harm to the plaintiff as compared to the defendant. On the other hand, Mr. Khidta relying upon State of Assam and another v. M/s. M.S. Associates, AIR 1994 Gauhati 105, states that the defendant is a public sector authority and it will not be in the interest of justice or public policy to grant any injunction against the defendant and by issuance of such injunction, irreparable loss would be caused. 12. It is not in dispute that the defendant has allotted the area in question to the plaintiff-company by communication dated 30th November, 1999. It is also not in dispute that the plaintiff has deposited the entire amount of consideration within the stipulated period and, therefore, the defendant in terms of the agreement, is bound to put the plaintiff in possession of the area in question. The case of the defendant is that Information Technology is to be housed in Shimla on priority basis and, therefore, this area specifically cannot be allotted to the plaintiff. 13. The grant of mandatory injunction in an interlocutory application is an exception. It is granted to restore the status quo and normally it should not be granted to alternate the state of affairs which existed when the suit was instituted. In Dorab Cawasji, their Lordships re-affirmed that relief of interlocutory mandatory injunction should Generally be granted to preserve or restore the status quo which existed at the time of filing of the suit. The Court stated that the grant of interlocutory mandatory injunction may depend upon: (i) The plaintiff has a strong case for trial. That is, it shall be of a higher standard than a prima facie case that is normally required for a prohibitory injunction; (ii) It is necessary to prevent irreparable or serious injury which normally cannot be compensated in terms of money; (iii) the balance of convenience is in favour of the one seeking such relief. 14. That is, it shall be of a higher standard than a prima facie case that is normally required for a prohibitory injunction; (ii) It is necessary to prevent irreparable or serious injury which normally cannot be compensated in terms of money; (iii) the balance of convenience is in favour of the one seeking such relief. 14. The Court further observed that being essentially an equitable relief the grant or refusal of an interlocutory mandatory injunction shall ultimately rest on the sound judicial discretion of the Court to be exercised in the light of the facts and circumstances of each case. 15. In the facts and circumstances of this case, the plaintiff is not entitled to interlocutory mandatory injunction as it will disturb the status quo which existed at the time of filing of the suit and any loss which may cause to the plaintiff by non-issuance of interlocutory mandatory injunction can be compensated with costs. However, it will be lair and reasonable if the defendant is restrained from allotting or delivering the possession of the area in question to any one other than the plaintiff till disposal of the suit. Order accordingly. The orders dated 9th of May, 2000 in OMP No. 145/ 2000 are made absolute till disposal of the suit. 16. Applications disposed of in the above terms. Application disposed.