The main legal point established is the application of equitable and practicable remedies when urgent relief is required, as interpreted from the provisions of Section 70 of the Himachal Pradesh Agriculture and Horticulture Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) Act, 2005, in light of Section 80 CPC.

Rajiv Sharma, J.

This petition is instituted against Order dated 14.8.2014 rendered by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Court No. II, in CMA No. 808/2014 in Civil Suit No. 126/2014.

2. “Key facts" necessary for the adjudication of the present petition are that respondent-plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as 'plaintiff' for convenience sake instituted a suit against the petitioner-defendant (hereinafter referred to as 'defendant' for convenience sake), for declaration. According to the plaintiff, she was put in possession of Shop No. 8 in Sub Market Yard Santokhgarh on 2.7.2009. She is coming in possession of the same. Shop in question was allotted after completing all codal formalities as required in law. Plaintiff received a show cause notice from the Secretary, Agriculture Produce Market Committee, Una, wherein it was specifically mentioned that an enquiry was conducted by the Vigilance Department. It was found that the Shop No. 8 allotted to the plaintiff was against Rules and recommended for cancellation of the allotment of Shop No. 8. A detailed reply was filed to the show cause notice through her counsel on 19.4.2014. She has not received any notice from the Vigilance Department to participate in any inquiry proceedings instituted against her. She has requested the defendant to supply documents of the inquiry. Defendant instead of supplying documents, issued cancellation letter of Shop no. 8 vide letter dated 3.7.2014. She was directed to vacate Shop in question and to hand over possession to the defendant within 30 days. Plaintiff also moved an application under Section 80 CPC for permitting to file suit without service of notice under Section 80 read with Section 174 of the Himachal Pradesh Agriculture Produce Markets Act. According to the averments made in the application bearing No. 808/2014, she has filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC for the grant of ad-interim injunction against the defendant for not dispossessing the plaintiff from the Shop premises in suit. Relief sought was imminent and urgent. Application was contested by the defendant. Preliminary objection has taken that the suit was barred under Sections 69 and 70 of the Himachal Pradesh Agriculture and Horticulture Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as Act' for convenience sake). Learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) allowed the application on 14.8.2014 by holding that matter appeared to be imminent and urgent in nature and if the plaintiff had to serve a notice and wait for expiration of statutory period of two months, defendant might have dispossessed her from the suit premises and purpose of filing the suit would have been defeated. In these circumstances, the application was allowed. Hence, this petition.

3. Mr. Sanjay Ranta has drawn the attention of the Court to Section 70 of the Himachal Pradesh Agriculture and Horticulture Produce Marketing (Development and Regulation) Act, 2005, which reads as under:

“70. Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act, no suit shall be instituted against the Board or any Committee, until the expiration of two months after notice in writing stating the cause of action, name and place of abode of the intending plaintiff and the relief which he claims has been delivered or left at its office. Every such suit shall be dismissed unless it is instituted within six months from the date of accrual of the alleged cause of action.”

4. He vehemently argued that the in view of bar imposed under Section 70 of the Act, application could not be allowed by learned trial Court. He also argued that the plaintiff had alternative remedy available to her under Section 80 of the Act.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the defendant and also gone through the record carefully.

6. Shop No. 8 was allotted to the plaintiff on 2.7.2009. She was put in possession. It is stated that some Vigilance inquiry was instituted against the plaintiff qua the allotment of th