(1.) BY this common judgment and order, I propose to dispose of all the five civil revision petitions, for, all of them involve identical facts and questions of law and, as has been sought for and agreed to by the learned Counsel for the parties, all the civil revisions have been heard together.
(2.) I have heard Mr. N. Choudhury, learned Counsel for the petitioners, and Mr. N. Dhar, learned Counsel for the opposite party.
(3.) BEFORE proceeding further, it needs to be noted that while it is contended, on behalf of the defendant -petitioners, that granting of injunction in the present case is barred by Section 14 read with Section 41(e) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, the opposite party, as plaintiffs in the suit, contend that their suit is maintainable and if injunction was not granted, it would have frustrated the suit. In such circumstances, according to the plaintiff -opposite party, the learned courts below committed no error in restraining the management of the said School from terminating the services of the plaintiffs. Countering the submissions so made on behalf of the plaintiff -opposite parties, it is further contended, on behalf of the defendant -petitioners, that at any rate, when Section 41(e) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, bars the courts from granting injunction to specifically enforce a contract of personal service, the learned courts below committed serious error of jurisdiction in granting injunction.