Suit for specific performance is an efficacious remedy.

The petitioners are the defendants.

2. The respondents filed a suit for permanent injunction in O.S.No.296 of 1998 in the Court of the District Munsif, Dharapuram. The petitioners filed an application in I.A.No.541 of 2001 under Order 7 Rule 11 of C.P.C. for rejecting the plaint of the respondents in view of the bar contained in Section 41(h) of the Specific Relief Act. Rejecting the said contention, the trial Court dismissed the application. Hence, this civil revision petition.

3. According to the petitioners, the suit filed by the respondents for permanent injunction restraining the petitioners from alienating the suit properties and also from interfering with the respondents' possession is not maintainable. Since the suit was filed on the basis of the agreement of sale dated 17.4.1998 executed between the petitioners and the respondents for a sale consideration of Rs.70 lakhs in respect of the suit properties and the respondents paid Rs.50,000/- to the petitioners towards advance. On knowing fully well that the respondents could not enforce the terms of agreement, they have chosen to file the suit for bare injunction when the efficacious remedy is available to them to file the suit for specific performance and as such, the suit is barred under Order 7 Rule 11(d) of C.P.C. by virtue of Section 41(h) of the Specific Relief Act.

4. The said contention is refuted by the respondents by contending that the respondents' possession was conceded in various proceedings in the said suit and consequently, the interim injunction was granted in I.A.No.1104 of 1998 and upheld through the order in C.M.A.No.4 of 1999 filed by the respondents. In pursuance of a compromise entered into between them, the respondents have also withdrawn the suit for specific performance in O.S.No.113 of 1999 on the file of Sub Court, Dharapuram and since the suit is for bare injunction to protect the permissive possession and legal possession of the respondents as endorsed by the petitioners, it cannot be said that there is a statutory bar to continue the present suit.

5. On the side of the respondents, it is pointed out that in pursuance of the above said compromise, at the intervention of Panchayatdars, a supplementary agreement dated 15.2.2000 was executed between the parties and in fact, after the said supplementary agreement, the petitioners have executed sale deeds over some portion of the suit properties and as such, the bar contemplated under Section 41(h) of the Specific Relief Act would not apply to the present case.

6. Mr.Raghavachari, the learned counsel for the petitioners/defendants would cite a number of authorities which are as follows:

1) HOLLAND-BOMBAY TRADING CO. v. ESSARDAS DHRAMCHAND (1925 Sind.175);

2) NARAYANDAS v. SARASVATIBAI (A.I.R.1968 BOMBAY 280);

3) DELHI MOTOR CO. v. BARSURKAR (1968(2) S.C.R.720);

4) V.KRISHNAIAH v. N.NARASIMHAREDDY (A.I.R.1976 ANDHRA PRADESH 395);

5) GANESH LAL v. MOHD. ISMAIL (A.I.R.1976 PATNA 223);

6) T.ARIVANDANDAM v. T.V.SATYAPAL (1977(4) S.C.C.467);

7) SATISH BAHADUR V. HANS RAJ (A.I.R.1980 PUNJAB & HARYANA 351);

8) BISWABANI (P) LTD. v. S.K. DUTTA & ORS. (1980(1) S.C.R.650);

9) SIVANANDA ROY v. JANAKI BALLAV PATTNAIK (A.I.R.1985 ORISSA 197);

10) SUNIL KUMAR v. RAM PARKASH (A.I.R.1988 S.C.576);

11) JAWAHAR LAL WADHWA v. HARIPADA CHAKROBERTY (A.I.R.1989 S.C.606);

12) JASMER SINGH v. KANWALJIT SINGH (A.I.R.1991 PUNJAB AND HARYANA 194);

13) RAJENDRA KUMAR v. MAHENDRA KUMAR MITTAL (A.I.R.1992 ALLAHABAD 35);

14) SATYANANDA SAHOO v. RATIKANTA PANDA (A.I.R.1997 ORRISA 67);

15) BALASUBRAMANIAM, K.S. v. V.S. MUNUSWAMY (2000(II) CTC 417);

16) LAXMI NARAIN ANAND PRAKASH v. COMMR. OF SALES TAX (ALL.) (46 CTC 71);

17) PROBODH KUMAR DAS v. DANTMARA TEA CO.(INDIAN APPEALS VOL.LXVI 293);

7. On the basis of the above said judgments, the main thrust of the arguments advanced by the said counsel is that under Section 41(h) of the Specific Relief Act, an injunction suit, which is a discretionary equitable relief suit, cannot be maintain