IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR Dayaram V/s. Tara Chand & Ors. (S.B. CIVIL MISC. APPEAL No.1298/2010) S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal under Section 104 read with Order 43 Rule 1 CPC Date of Order :: May 06, 2010 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.S.CHAUHAN Mr. Hanuman Choudhary for the appellant. Mr. Naveen Dhuwan for the respondent.
Aggrieved by the order dated 20.04.2010 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No.3, Jhunjhunu, Headquarter Nawalgarh, whereby the learned Judge has dismissed the temporary injunction application filed under order 39 Rules 1 & 2 read with Section 151 CPC, the appellant-plaintiff has approached this Court.
The learned counsel for the appellant has contended that on 17.04.2008, the appellant had entered into a contract with defendant-respondent No.1, Tara Chand, for operating mines for which Tara Chand had a mining licence. The appellant-plaintiff had paid a consideration of Rs.60,000/- to Tara Chand. Ever since, 17.04.2008, he has been operating the mines and even today he is in possession of the mines. However, surreptitiously Trara Chand has transferred the mining licence in the name of his daughter-in-law, respondent No.2. According to the learned counsel, in case, status quo were not maintained, he would suffer irreparable loss, as his mining operation will come to a grinding halt.
On the other hand, the learned counsel for respondent No.1 has contended that since Tara Chand was wholly and legally holding a mining licence, he was entitled to transfer it to his daughter-in-law. He not only transferred the said mining lease to his daughter-in-law, but also informed the Mining Department. The proceedings before the Mining Department are complete. Secondly, in case, there were, indeed, an agreement between the appellant and respondent No.1, the appellant should have moved the papers for having such transfer in his name before the Mining Department. However, he never took a single step in this direction. Moreover, according to Section 14 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, no contract can be enforced the breach of which can be compensated adequately. Lastly, according to Section 41 of the Act, in case the person has alternative, efficacious remedy, then the injunction should be refused. According to the learned counsel, even if the statement of the appellant were taken to be true, that there has been a breach of contract, the same can be compensated through damages. Moreover, in case, the appellant is aggrieved by the action of respondent No.1, he is free to invoke the remedies before the Department. Since an alternative remedy does exist, the learned Judge is justified in dismissing the application under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC. In order to strengthen his contention, the learned counsel has relied upon the judgment in the case of Ramchandara Tanwar V/s. Ram Rakhmal Amichand & Anr. [AIR 1971 (Raj.) 292]
Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order.
A bare perusal of the order clearly reveals that the learned Judge had clearly noted the fact that despite the claim of the appellant that he has been operating the mines for over one year, he has failed to submit any evidence in the shape of Rawana or other documents to establish his contention that he is in possession of the mines. Moreover, the learned Judge has also noticed that under Section 41 of the Act, in case there were an efficacious alternative remedy, then injunction should be refused. In the case of Ramchandra Tanwar (supra), this Court has clearly held that in case the plaintiff files a case for damages, even if such a case would fall under Clauses (a) & (c) of Section 14(1) of the Act, then no injunction can be granted in such a case. In the present case also, the petitioner is entitled to damages for the alleged breach of contract by the respondent. Thus, in this view of the matter, the learned Judge is certainly justified in dismissing the application filed under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 CPC.
Hence, this appeal is, hereby, dismissed.
(R.S.CHAUHAN)J.
A.ASopa/-