C.R. No. 1151 of 2011 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R. No. 1151 of 2011 Date of Decision: February 17, 2011 Suresh Kumar …..Petitioner Vs. Branch Manager, Rewari Central Coop. Bank Ltd. and others …..Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI. -.- Present:- Mr.Gopal Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. -.- M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) The plaintiff had entered into an agreement with the defendant Cooperative Bank regarding renting of his building on monthly rent of `4000/- per month which was to be adjusted every month against the loan amount taken by the plaintiff- petitioner from the Bank. The plaintiff- petitioner filed a suit for permanent injunction against the defendant- respondents to restrain them from vacating the premises taken by the Bank on rent prior to the expiry of lease period of five years. The Courts below C.R. No. 1151 of 2011 [2] have refused to grant interim injunction to the plaintiff- petitioner. Aggrieved by the orders passed by the Courts below, the present revision petition has been filed. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the defendant- respondents had earlier threatened the plaintiff to vacate the premises but a suit for injunction was filed by plaintiff. The Branch Manager of the Bank had made a statement, annexure P-3, on July 15, 2009 in the Court of Addl. Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kosli, that the high officials of the Bank will be bound with the tenure of the agreement. In view of said statement the suit filed by the plaintiff for permanent injunction was withdrawn vide order dated July 15, 2009, annexure P-4 by the plaintiff- petitioner. Subsequent a notice dated August 31, 2009 was issued to the plaintiff- petitioner giving him notice of one month regarding the vacation of the building by the Bank. On account of that subsequent event, the petitioner again filed a suit for injunction. The Courts below have refused to grant the interim injunction to the plaintiff petitioner, inter-alia on the ground that the plaintiff- petitioner has got an alternative remedy of claiming damages and that no irreparable loss has been caused to the plaintiff- petitioner in case the defendant- respondents vacate the premises prior to the expiry of the period mentioned in the agreement. It has been observed by the Courts below that no irreparable loss is going to be suffered by the plaintiff- petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that the statement of the Bank Manager, annexure P-3 and the order passed C.R. No. 1151 of 2011 [3] annexure P-4 on July 15, 2009 in a previous suit between the parties has not been considered by the Courts below while refusing the interim injunction to the plaintiff- petitioner. I have heard counsel for the plaintiff- petitioner and considered the facts and circumstances of the case. I have also gone through the notice date August 31, 2009 which appears to constitute the basic cause of action for the plaintiff- petitioner to file the suit. I have also considered the statement of Branch Manager made on July 15, 2009 in the Court stating that the defendant- respondents were safe in the building and they were bound with the tenure of the agreement. Prima facie, the said statement at that stage persuaded the plaintiff-petitioner to withdraw the suit vide annexure P-4. The second suit seems to have been filed on the basis of fresh cause of action. Whether the cause of action is manipulated or it suffers from the vice of malafide, cannot be considered at this stage. So far as the interim injunction is concerned, no doubt, the suit can be filed. In view of Section 38 of the Specific Relief Act, whenever any obligation arises from a contract, the plaintiff in such circumstances has got a right to prevent such breach of obligation existing in his favour whether expressly or impliedly. The suit of the plaintiff is certainly maintainable but so far as the relief of interim injunction is concerned, it is guided by the principle that plaintiff should be able to establish that he will suffer an irreparable loss in case interim injunction is not granted. There should be prima facie a strong case in favour of the plaintiff- petitioner. The plaintiff should be able to establish that the balance of convenience lies in his favour. In the present C.R. No. 1151 of 2011 [4] case, no doubt, the suit for perpetual injunction is maintainable if seen in context to the provisions of Section 38 (1) and (2) of the Specific Relief Act but the plaintiff, at the same time has got an equally efficacious remedy available to him to claim damages for the breach of trust or for breach of obligation arisen out of an agreement between the parties. It will be debatable during the adjudication of the suit whether on account of availability of equally efficacious remedy, the plaintiff could claim perpetual injunction against the defendant- respondents. Besides this, the compensation can be claimed in case without any reasonable cause or with malafide intention there is a breach of obligation arisen out of the contract between the parties. The Courts below have rightly considered the facts and circumstances of the case and not granted the interim relief. I have considered the contention of counsel for the petitioner that in case the premises is vacated by the Bank, the petitioner will be deprived of the interest accruing per month making him unable to repay the loan which would ultimately result in money decree against him. In that eventuality his building will be sold and that an irreparable loss will be caused to him. The said apprehension seems to be far-fetched. It is a settled principle of law that irreparable loss is that loss which cannot be compensated with money. In case of violation of any agreement the petitioner will be entitled to compensation in the shape of money on account of non-existence of any irreparable loss. In the present case, I do not deem it appropriate to interfere in the orders passed by the Courts below in C.R. No. 1151 of 2011 [5] exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Dismissed. February 17, 2011 (M.M.S.BEDI) sanjay JUDGE