1 S.B. CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 3/2008. Bhanwar Lal & Ors. Vs. Raju Ram & Ors. Date of Order :: 21st April 2008. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI Mr.S.S. Bhati for the petitioners Mr.P.C.Purohit for the respondent No.1. ... BY THE COURT: Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the impugned order dated 29th October 2007, this Court is unable to find any jurisdictional error in the order impugned so as to consider interference under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The petitioners are defending a suit for perpetual injunction as filed by the plaintiff-non-petitioner No.1 seeking protection of his possession on the disputed land. The petitioners-defendants moved an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC with the submissions that the plaintiff has filed the suit for perpetual injunction on the basis of an alleged agreement in relation to the land in question; and, according to the petitioners, for the plaintiff having efficacious remedy of seeking specific performance of the agreement and in view of the provisions of Section 41 (h) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 ('the Act'), the suit was not maintainable. 2 The learned Trial Court has proceeded to reject the application aforesaid with the observations that the suit has been filed by the plaintiff for protection of his possession and it does not appear prima facie that he could protect his possession by way of any other proceedings. The learned Trial Court has observed that of course, the plaintiff could take up proceedings for specific performance and the plaintiff has indeed taken averments in the plaint that he be not dispossessed till performance of the agreement; however, according to the learned Trial Court, it cannot be said that the suit for perpetual injunction for protection of possession was not maintainable; and it cannot be said that the plaint does not disclose any cause of action or that the suit is barred by any law. Assailing the order aforesaid, learned counsel Mr.Bhati appearing for the petitioners contended that the plaintiff has filed the suit only for perpetual injunction on the basis of an alleged unregistered agreement and such a suit is not maintainable in view of the provisions of Section 41 (h) of the Act as the plaintiff could have taken proceedings for specific performance and no injunction could be issued for availability of alternative remedy. Learned counsel has referred to and relied upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the 3 case of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. Suresh Chandra Jaipuria: AIR 1976 SC 2621. Without any comments on the merits of the case and as to whether any injunction as prayed for by the plaintiff is to be granted or not, suffice is to say for the present purpose that the impugned order cannot be said to be suffering from any jurisdictional error. Whether injunction as prayed for is to be refused because of the provisions of Section 41(h) of the Act is a question entirely different and it is altogether a different aspect to suggest that the suit is barred by any law. Exercise of discretion by the Court concerned to grant injunction is conditioned by various principles as contained in the Specific Relief Act, 1963 and so also the binding decisions including the one in the case of Municipal Corporation of Delhi (supra) as relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioners. However, on such principles, it is difficult to countenance the submission that the suit itself be taken to be barred by law so as to reject the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. The impugned order calls for no interference in revisional jurisdiction of this Court. The revision petition is, therefore, dismissed. No costs. (DINESH MAHESHWARI), J. MK