SAT PAL VERMA Vs. PARAMJIT KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE suit of the plaintiff-respondent for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from carrying on business of running a school/college on the first and second floors of Shop-cum-Flat No. 35, Sector 23, Chandigarh, was decreed by the learned trial Court. The appeal filed by the defendant having been dismissed, he has approached this Court through the present second appeal. On May 18, 1994, the sole appellant passed away. CM. No. 607-C/1997 was filed on January 30, 1997, to implead his legal representatives. By a separate order of date, this application was allowed.

(2.) MR . Gill, learned counsel for the appellants, has contended that the Courts below have erred in granting an injunction. Learned counsel has referred to the provisions of Section 41 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, to contend that an injunction cannot be granted "to prevent a continuing breach in which the plaintiff has acquiesced". It has also been suggested that such a relief is not admissible when an equally efficacious relief can be obtained by any other mode or proceeding or when the conduct of the plaintiff has been such as to disentitle her to the assistance of the Court. Learned counsel has referred to the Full Bench decision of this Court in M/s Ram Gopal Banarsi Dass v. Satish Kumar, (1985-2)88 P. L. R. 457 (F. B. ). The claim made on behalf of the appellants has been controverted by the learned counsel for the respondent.

(3.) A perusal of the plaint shows that the plaintiff had prayed for the issue of an injunction on the ground that the defendant had "started using the premises for running an academy/school/college. .