Final Order 9

Order Details: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Pdf Text: Civ suit 809/23
SARABAR @ SARVEER Vs. ANIRUDH SHARMA
08.04.2025
Present: Plaintiff in person.
Sh. A.K. Dua, Ld. Counsel for applicant Naval Yadav
and Lakshman.
Defendant has been proceeded ex-parte.
1. The plaintiff has filed the present suit seeking permanent
and mandatory injunctions to restrain the defendants from
dispossessing him from the suit property and from creating any
third party interest therein.
2. The basis of the suit is an alleged oral agreement between
the plaintiff and defendant no. 1, wherein the defendant
purportedly agreed to sell the suit property to the plaintiff for a
consideration of Rs. 3,50,000/-, to which the plaintiff had
consented. Pursuant to this alleged agreement, the plaintiff claims
to have paid a substantial portion of the sale amount to defendant
no. 1. The plaintiff further contends that in April 2023, two
individuals- Naval Yadav and Lakshman (applicants herein)-
threatened to dispossess him from the suit property.
3. Upon perusal of the record, it is evident that the plaintiff has
not sought the relief of specific performance of the alleged
agreement to sell but instead filed a suit solely for injunction.
Under Section 38 and 41 (h) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, a
perpetual injunction cannot be granted wherein an equally
efficacious remedy is available through ordinary legal
proceedings. In this context, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in
Cont...
-- 1 of 3 --
-2-
Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Surender Chand Jaipuria
and Anr1 in paragraph 10 observed:
“10. Further, Section 41 (h) of Specific Relief Act
which lays down that an injunction, which is a
discretionary equitable relief cannot be granted
when an equally efficacious relief is obtainable in
any other usual mode or proceedings except in
cases of breach of trust was also relevant on this
point. Thus the remedy under Section 169 of the
Delhi Municipal Corporation Act 1957 was
available to the plaintiff. This consideration had a
bearing upon the question whether a prima facie
case existed for the grant of an interim injunction.”
4. Similarly, the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in
Satish Bahadur Vs. Hansraj and Ors.2 held that when a party has
the option of seeking specific performance of a contract- an
equally efficacious remedy- a suit for bare injunction is not
maintainable. The court held:
“Since the plaintiffs are entitled to another equally
efficacious relief, the present suit for permanent
injunction cannot proceed, because an injunction
cannot be granted when equally efficacious relief
can certainly be obtained by any other usual mode
of proceedings. In the present suit the Court is not
concerned with the limitation of three years for
filing the suit for specific performance of the
contract. The sole question to be decided is
whether the present suit for permanent injunction
can continue when an equally efficacious relief has
become available to the plaintiffs during the
Cont...
1 AIR 1976 SC 2621
2 AIR 1980 P&H 351
-- 2 of 3 --
-3-
pendency of the suit. It cannot be disputed that the
subsequent events after the institution of the suit
can always be taken into consideration while
deciding the matter in controversy. Reference in
this respect can be made to Pasupuleti
Venkateswarlu’s case”.3
5. In the present case, the plaintiff has instituted a bare suit for
injunction solely on the basis of an alleged oral agreement to
purchase the suit property, without seeking the relief of specific
performance. In light of the above discussion, the present suit is
clearly barred under Section 41 (h) of the Specific Relief Act,
1963. Consequently, the plaintiff’s suit is liable to be dismissed.
However, the plaintiff is at liberty to file a comprehensive suit
seeking substantive reliefs, including specific performance, as
permissible under the law.
6. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
(AYUSH SHARMA)
CIVIL JUDGE/EAST
KKD COURTS/08.04.2025
3 AIR 1975 SC 1049
-- 3 of 3 --