JUDGMENT 1. The matter comes up on the misc. application filed by the petitioner in Misc. Stay Application, which was filed along-with the main writ petition. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed in the misc. application that the present writ petition was filed against the order dated 31.08.2016, dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order dated 13.01.2011 rejecting the application of the petitioner of temporary injunction filed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC. 3. Learned counsel submitted that during pendency of the writ petition, the respondent-Rajasthan Housing Board ('RHB') has decided to put the plots in question for auction and as such, this Court may pass appropriate order restraining the respondent-RHB to alienate the property or to create third party rights over the disputed plots. 4. This Court, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, is disposing of these petitions, by a common order, as the controversy involved in the writ petitions is identical in nature. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was allotted a residential plot by the RHB and details of cost of house and other expenses, were also given in the allotment letter. 6. Learned counsel submitted that when the respondent- RHB did not take action of construction as per the terms of the allotment letter, the petitioner had to file a suit for permanent injunction and mandatory injunction, whereby, the petitioner sought a direction that the RHB was to be directed for making construction as per Schedule-G and after completing the entire construction, the Housing Board was also required to provide public facilities, as was to be given to the different applicants including the petitioner. 7. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner also filed an application for temporary injunction application alongwith the suit. 8. Learned counsel submitted that in the temporary injunction application, the petitioner had prayed that direction was to be issued to the Housing Board that necessary construction was to be carried out and plot allotted to the petitioner was not to be cancelled only on account of not paying the certain amount demanded from the petitioner. 9. Learned counsel submitted that temporary injunction application of the petitioner was dismissed by the Civil Court, vide order dated 13.01.2011 and the same was challenged before the Appellate Court by filing the misc. 9. Learned counsel submitted that temporary injunction application of the petitioner was dismissed by the Civil Court, vide order dated 13.01.2011 and the same was challenged before the Appellate Court by filing the misc. appeal and the appeal has also been dismissed vide order dated 31.08.2016. 10. Learned counsel submitted that both the Courts below have not considered the fact of issuance of proper allotment letter in favour of the petitioner and further they failed to consider that RHB did not make the construction as per schedule-G. 11. Learned counsel submitted that without safeguarding the rights of the petitioner, the impugned action of the RHB has been proved by both the Courts below. 12. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner was able to prove prima facie case in her favour, as the petitioner was issued an allotment letter by the RHB and the petitioner had complied with the terms and conditions of the allotment letter. 13. Learned counsel submitted that the respondent-RHB failed to carry out the construction as was agreed between the parties, blame have been put on the petitioner and as such, both the Courts below have committed grave illegality in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner. 14. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner has also brought on record the subsequent events in the writ petition, which have taken place, by way of filing an additional affidavit. 15. Learned counsel submitted that the RHB also issued a circular dated 02.11.2021, whereby, it has been decided that those allottees, who have been allotted plots and for sufficient reason, they are not able to make the payment, then such allottees can deposit the entire amount in one installment and as such, RHB will waive the charges of interest and penalty. 16. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner has also submitted representation in pursuance of the explanatory circular and in spite of such request being made by the petitioner, the RHB has proceeded further to put the plot in question for auction and third party rights are being created. 17. Learned counsel submitted that the suit filed by the petitioner is pending since 2010 and only on account of dismissal of temporary injunction application, the respondent-RHB has taken an extreme step of putting the plots for public auction and this Court needs to interfere in the present writ petition. 18. 17. Learned counsel submitted that the suit filed by the petitioner is pending since 2010 and only on account of dismissal of temporary injunction application, the respondent-RHB has taken an extreme step of putting the plots for public auction and this Court needs to interfere in the present writ petition. 18. Learned counsel Dr.P.C. Jain appearing for the respondent-RHB, submitted that the Courts have not committed any illegality in rejecting the prayer of the petitioner for grant of temporary injunction. 19. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner was not able to prove even prima facie case in her favour and the Court below after considering the terms of allotment of plot to the petitioner, came to conclusion that the petitioner was not having any right to ask for injunction against the RHB. 20. Learned counsel also submitted that during pendency of the suit, the Civil Court was informed that since the petitioner had not adhered to the terms and conditions of allotment letter, as such, the respondent-RHB has cancelled the allotment in favour of the petitioner. 21. Learned counsel further submitted that the amount, which was deposited by the petitioner, initially was also returned but the cheque sent by the RHB, was not delivered to the petitioner. 22. Learned counsel submitted that the prayer made in the misc. stay application to stay the auction proceedings, which are initiated now, may not be granted by this Court, as the writ petition is directed only against the orders passed by the Civil Court and the Appellate Court. 23. Dr.P.C. Jain, learned counsel for the respondent further submitted that since the cancellation of plot, initially made in favour of petitioner has already been done by the respondent-RHB and as such, the benefit which is given by way of circular, now cannot be extended to the petitioner. 24. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 25. This Court finds that the present writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 31.08.2016, passed by the Appellate Court and the order dated 03.01.2001 passed by the Civil Court. 26. This Court has to consider as what has prevailed in the mind of both the Courts while considering the application filed by the petitioner for grant of temporary injunction. 27. 26. This Court has to consider as what has prevailed in the mind of both the Courts while considering the application filed by the petitioner for grant of temporary injunction. 27. This Court finds that the Court below after considering the entire facts and prima facie recording a finding that the petitioner was not able to prove that whether the construction was made by the RHB as per Schedule-G or not then it came to conclusion that injunction cannot be granted in favour of the petitioner. 28. This Court will be afraid to appreciate the factual aspect which was laid before the Court below and is not in a position to give any finding on the facts, which have been already prima facie considered by the Court below. 29. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that subsequent developments, which have taken place, makes the petitioner entitled for allotment, suffice it to say by this Court that if any independent right has accrued to the petitioner in pursuance of decision taken by the RHB, she is always free to pursue the remedy in accordance with law. 30. This Court will not give any finding in respect of entitlement of the petitioner for allotment in view of subsequent decision taken by the RHB. 31. This Court finds that if any action has been taken by the RHB in respect of putting the plots in question for auction, it is for the petitioner to take proper remedy as provided under the law and she can always file appropriate application in the Court below. 32. This Court accordingly, dismisses the present writ petitions and does not find any error in the orders passed by the Civil Court and the Appellate Court. 33. A copy of this order be placed in each petition.