The judgment emphasizes the importance of fulfilling contractual obligations and the limitations of seeking relief beyond the pleadings. It also highlights the legal principles of Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, and the consequences of non-payment of dues to a financial corporation.

JUDGMENT :

B.S. Chauhan, J. - This writ petition has been filed seeking direction to the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to transfer the lease of the property in dispute in Petitioner's favour and to furnish him the statement of accounts and in the meanwhile not to interfere with functioning of the unit.

2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that the present Petitioner purchased the unit in dispute in pursuance of the advertisement made by the Orissa State Financial Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the "Corporation") for sale of the seized unit, namely M/s. Sarala Paper Mill situated over plot No. 160, Zone - B, New Industrial Estate, Jagatpur with an area measuring Ac.0.50 decimals along with building. The Petitioner made an offer and the Corporation agreed in principle vide its letter dated 31.3.1992. Petitioner paid Rs. 75,000 as per the term of the executed nor further instalments were paid by the Petitioner. The Corporation wanted to dispossess the Petitioner. The Petitioner filed the writ petition seeking the aforesaid reliefs.

3. In the meanwhile the said property has been settled in favour of opposite party No. 5 and it has been put in possession by the Corporation. The s aid Respondent is running the said unit.

4. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that sale of the property had been settled with opposite party No. 5 in spite of the interim order passed by this Court. Therefore, this Court would take serious note of it and grant the reliefs sought for by the Petitioner. Petitioner was even otherwise entitled to retain possession by virtue of application of the provisions of Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 ( hereinafter called 'T.P.Act'). Thus the Petitioner is entitled for the aforesaid relief.

5. Learned Counsel for the Respondents have submitted that agreement had never been executed between the parties. The property belongs to IDCompany No. lease deed has ever been executed in favour of the Petitioner by IDCompany The letter dated 31.3.1992 in fact is not an agreement but agreement in principle by the Corporation. Letter dated 31.3.1992 provides for proposed terms of agreement, thus cannot itself be called as agreement. It clearly provides that in case of non-payment of instalments or non-execution of the sale deed within the period stipulated therein, the allotment/sale would be treated cancelled and the money deposited by him would stand forfeited. Thus the petition is liable to be dismissed.

6. It has been submitted that subsequent sale in favour of opposite party No. 5 is a nullity as having been executed in disobedience of the interim order of this Court. In Mulraj Vs. Murti Raghonathji Maharaj, the Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the effect of action taken subsequent to passing of an interim order in its disobedience and held that any action taken in disobedience of the order passed by the Court would be illegal subsequent action would be a nullity.

7. There is substance in the submission made by the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the authority cannot pass an order or should not take any action in contravention of the interim order passed by this Court. However, in the instant case the interim order has not been extended after 22.8.2002 and the Petitioner made No. attempt to get it extended. The interim order stood lapsed on 22.8.2002. These opposite parties have not committed any breach of the order passed by this Court.

8. In spite of the fact that the property has been settled in favor of opposite party No. 5, and the said party has been put in possession, the Petitioner, for the reasons best known to him, did not make any attempt to amend the writ petition. Though Petitioner has impleaded opposite party No. 5 vide order dated 13.2.2007, but mere adding him as a party would not serve any purpose as No. relief has been claimed against the said party. Since quashing of allotment of land or any other subsequent correspondence made after it has not been sought,