Judgment 1. Heard Learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the respondent. 2. This Miscellaneous Appeal has been filed by the defendants-appellants challenging the order dated 21.7.2004 by which the learned 6th Subordinate Judge, Patna, allowed the petition of the plaintiff-respondent for mandatory injunction directing the defendants-appellants to take steps for renewal of sanctioned plan for the construction before the PR.D.A within fifteen days and also directing the plaintiff-respondent to immediately restart the construction work after renewal of the sanctioned plan and complete the construction work within the period granted. 3. It is an admitted fact that defendants-appellants are the owners of the premises, whereas the plaintiff-respondent is the Builder. It is also an admitted fact that on 6.11.1999 the defendants-appellants got a plan of building over the land in question sanctioned by the PR.D.A, whereafter they entered into a development agreement on 28.5.2001 (annexure-2) with one Sai Construction who after making some construction abandoned it. It is also not disputed that on 28.5.2001 (annexure-2) the plaintiff and the defendants entered into a development (s/c-Agreement ?) for making construction on the lands in question as per the plan sanctioned by the RR.D.A on 6.11.1999. 4. Learned counsel for the defendants-appellants challenges the impugned order on the ground that as per the power of attorney dated 28.5.2001 (annexure-3), the defendants-appellants has specifically authorised the developer, namely the plaintiff-respondent, to do all works in connection with the development and hence there was no occasion for the defendants-appellants to take any steps for renewal or extension of the sanctioned plan before the RR.D.A. The other point raised by the learned counsel for the defendants-appellants is that the Trial Court should not have granted the impugned mandatory injunction as it amounted to decreeing the suit specially when the earlier injunction petition dated 17.11.2003 (Annexure-A) for restraining the defendants from interfering and creating trouble in the construction of the building was rejected by the learned court below on 15.4.2004 (annexure-4). 5. 5. From the arguments raised by the parties and the materials on record, it is quite apparent that the plan for the building was submitted by the defendants-appellants before the RR.D.A which sanctioned the same on 6.11.1999 and according to the provision of Sec. 43 of the Patna Regional Development Authority Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act for the sake of brevity), the life of the plan sanctioned by the RR.D.A is three years and hence the said period was to expire on 5.11.2002. Furthermore, the defendaits-appellants entered into the development agreement with the plaintiff-respondent on 28.5.2001 (annexure-2) specifically for making constructions according to the sanctioned plan dated 6.11.1999 and as per the agreement the said development was to be completed within three years which was to expire on 27.5.2004. Hence, the life of the sanctioned plan expired during the pendency of the development agreement. It is also an admitted fact that Title Suit No. 474 of 2003, out of which this Miscellaneous Appeal has arisen, was filed by the plaintiff-respondent on 10.11.2003, i.e. before the expiry of three years fixed by the development agreement dated 28.5.2001 (annexure-2). 6. It is apparent from the materials on record that as per the development agreement dated 28.5.2001 (Annexure-2), the builder had to work as per the sanctioned plan submitted by the defendants-appellants before the P.R.D.A. which has sanctioned it much prior to the development agreement arrived at between the parties. In that connection it may be noted that the plan has been prepared and submitted by the owners (defendants-appellant) themselves, and not by the developer (plaintiff-respondent). It is specifically provided in clause 5.4 of the Modified Building Bye-Laws that any building plan has to be signed by the owner which term is defined in clause 2.48, which does not include any attorney. Hence, in the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it was incumbent upon the defendants appellants to take steps for renewal of the sanctioned plan by the P.R.D.A for the construction of the building as per the specific provision of the development agreement and their own undertaking given before the court which is noted in order dated 15.4.2004 (Annexure-4). 7. Hence, in the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it was incumbent upon the defendants appellants to take steps for renewal of the sanctioned plan by the P.R.D.A for the construction of the building as per the specific provision of the development agreement and their own undertaking given before the court which is noted in order dated 15.4.2004 (Annexure-4). 7. So far the question of expiry of the period of development agreement is concerned, it is quite apparent that the owners (defendants-appellants) having full knowledge and information that their sanctioned plan was going to expire on 5.11.2002, entered into a development agreement with the developer (plaintiff-respondent) on 28.5.20Q1 for construction of the building as per the said sanctioned plan within three years for the date of agreement. In addition thereto paragraph 6 of the development agreement dated 28.5.2001 (Annexure-2) specifically shows that time was not the essence of contract. This also finds support from the provision of Sec. 55 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. 8. In the said circumstances, the matter is not over, nor the contract can be repudiated on that score after the expiry of three years. Furthermore, the three years as per the development agreement has expired during the pendency of the suit only because of the owners (defendants-appellants) who failed to take steps which they were bound to take in accordance with the agreement. The learned court below has very fairly considered in the impugned order that several persons, who had booked their flats at the cost of their hard earnings, are put in trouble because of differences between the owners and the builder and the loss and the sufferings are increasing everyday due to non-completion of the remaining small constructions. 9. It is also apparent that the entire relief claimed by the plaintiff-respondent is not allowed by the impugned order as the question of compensation as well as clause 6 of the agreement has yet to be decided. Only as an ad interim measure, the impugned order has been passed by the learned court below which was necessary in the ends of justice to save the persons, who had booked their flats in the building, from further sufferings and harassments due to the differences between the owners and the builder, although substantial constructions has already been made. Only as an ad interim measure, the impugned order has been passed by the learned court below which was necessary in the ends of justice to save the persons, who had booked their flats in the building, from further sufferings and harassments due to the differences between the owners and the builder, although substantial constructions has already been made. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the learned court below has rightly come to a conclusion that the plaintiff had a prima facie (s/c-case?) for issuance of such injunction and the balance of convenience was also in favour of the plaintiff, whereas it was clear that not only the plaintiff, but the persons, who had booked their flats in the building concerned, were going to suffer irreparable loss if such an order was not passed. 10. In view of the aforesaid discussions, I do not find any illegality or even irregularity in the impugned order and accordingly, this Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed