IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.3720 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 23.3.2010 Bijender Kumar ......Appellant(s) Versus The Manager Haryana Khadi Gram Udyog, Narnaul ......Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Mr. S.K. Yadav, Advocate for the appellant. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. (Oral) CM No.3330-C of 2010 After hearing learned counsel for the applicant-appellant, this application is allowed. Order dated 3.2.2010 is recalled and the appeal is restored to its original number. RSA No.3720 of 2009 This is plaintiff's second appeal challenging the judgment and decrees of the Courts below whereby a suit for injunction restraining the defendant from recovering the loan amount by way of coercive methods has been dismissed. The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant before this Court is that the defendant-respondent could not straightway use coercive method of effecting the recovery by arresting the plaintiff-appellant and the respondent should have adopted other methods like attaching the property of the plaintiff in the first instance and in case, the respondent fails to effect the recovery through the properties of the plaintiff then of course, the respondent was at liberty to adopt other coercive methods. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant. RSA No.3720 of 2009 (O&M) -2- There is no force in the argument raised by the learned counsel. It is well settled that relief of injunction is a discretionary and equitable relief and the person who seeks equity, is supposed to do equity also. Admittedly, the appellant has not repaid the loan amount. Even during the pendency of this suit not even a singe penny has been repaid. The appellant could not support the argument raised by him by showing any provision of law or the judgment. In this view of the matter, I find no merit in this appeal. No substantial question of law arises. Dismissed. March 23, 2010 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE