JUDGMENT : Nisha Gupta, J. The instant civil first appeal has been preferred against the judgment & decree dated 28/09/2006 passed by Additional District Judge (Fast Track), Sawai Madhopur whereby, he dismissed Civil Suit No. 94/2005 (57/2004) filed by the plaintiff-appellants for permanent injunction. 2. The facts giving rise to this appeal in brief are that appellant has filed a suit for permanent injunction on the ground that a disputed property i.e. a plot of land is situated at Bajaria, Sawai Madhopur near Bank of Baroda, measuring 30.6x23 square feet. The land belongs to the respondents and for which, a scheme was prepared in the year 1988 for construction of four big showrooms and shops for letting purposes. The public notice was issued with the contention that they will construct four showrooms and certain shops and the person desirous to take a showroom should deposit Rs. 50,000/- in the office of the respondents. Rent of the property would be decided according to the market rate. The shops and showrooms would be constructed within six months and possession thereof shall be delivered to the person concerned within six months and if not, security amount would be returned with interest @5% p.a. Appellant showed intention to have showroom No.2 and deposited Rs. 12,500/- with the respondents but on 04/02/1994, the respondents have returned the money with interest. The appellant has returned the cheque along with notice dated 08/03/1994. Thereafter, many times he visited the office of the respondents to have the possession of the property. When 30 shops were constructed in 1997, appellant asked to deliver the possession, which was denied hence, suit for mandatory injunction has been filed. Contention of the respondents was that the money has been returned on 04/02/1994 and suit is time barred. No notice u/S.143 of the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Act, 2001 (shall hereinafter be referred to as the "Act of 2001") has been furnished. Hence, suit is not maintainable and as per condition, appellants have not deposited the remaining amount of Rs. 37,500/- within a period of a week and the deposited amount was to be forfeited and as per provisions of Sections 14 & 41(h) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (shall hereinafter be referred to as the "Act of 1963"), the suit is not maintainable. 3. 37,500/- within a period of a week and the deposited amount was to be forfeited and as per provisions of Sections 14 & 41(h) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (shall hereinafter be referred to as the "Act of 1963"), the suit is not maintainable. 3. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the court below has framed as many as 9 issues, which are reproduced, as under:- "(1) Whether the defendants are liable to be restrained by way of permanent injunction to handover the possession of constructed show room No.2 measuring 30x23 feet to the plaintiff on monthly rent of Rs. 1,000/- in terms of para 2 of the plaint and as per the map of 1988 as well as agreement? (2) Whether in case if during the pendency of the suit, show room no. 2 already allotted to the plaintiff is given by the defendants on rent to any other person then, allotment should be liable to be cancelled and possession thereof should be handed over to the plaintiff? (3) Whether in case the defendants by making modifications in the earlier map, changed the place and size of show room no. 2 then, defendants would be liable to construct another show room of the same place and size in lieu thereof on their own expenses and provide the same to the plaintiff? (4) Whether prior notice of two moths was liable to be issued to the defendants u/S.143 of the Rajasthan Cooperative Societies Act before instituting the suit, which in the present case the plaintiff has not done and hence whether the suit is liable to be dismissed on this count? (5) Whether the suit is liable to be dismissed being time barred? (6) Whether the suit is liable to be dismissed as no cause of action arose? (7) Whether the suit is liable to be dismissed for want of jurisdiction? (8) Whether in view of the fact that plaintiff has breached the terms of contract, he is legally entitled to have the specific part of contract of earlier scheme being performed in terms of Section 14 of the Specific Relief Act and for this reason, whether the suit is liable to be dismissed? (9) Relief?" 4. (8) Whether in view of the fact that plaintiff has breached the terms of contract, he is legally entitled to have the specific part of contract of earlier scheme being performed in terms of Section 14 of the Specific Relief Act and for this reason, whether the suit is liable to be dismissed? (9) Relief?" 4. The plaintiff in support of his plea, got examined Madan Kant as PW1, Laxmikant as PW2 and Indrajeet Dubey as PW3 and in support of the documentary evidence, got exhibited eight documents and in rebuttal, defendants got examined Mahendra Kumar Sharma as DW1 and in documentary evidence, got one document exhibited as Ex. A1. 5. After hearing both the parties, the trial court dismissed the suit. Hence, this first appeal. 6. Contention of the appellant is that the court below has relied on Ex.A1, whereas original notification has not been produced. Case of the respondents is that they could not construct the showroom hence, money has been returned and now, when construction has been made and money is still with the respondents, they are entitled for possession of the property. Per contra, the respondents have reiterated their arguments raised above. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment and decree as well as original record of the case. 8. Issue No. 1 is a pertinent issue for which, the contention of the appellant is that they have deposited the money as per the conditions hence, possession of the property should be handed over to them and mandatory injunction be issued. Main contention has been raised as regards to Ex.A1 that it is not submitted in original. It is true that copy of Ex.A1 has been submitted but permission to lead secondary evidence has been allowed to the respondents vide order dated 21/08/2006 hence, this argument carries no weight. Apart from it, the witness PW2-Laxmikant has also accepted that the conditions, which have been contained in the publication were made known to them and they have not fulfilled some of the conditions. The admitted case of the plaintiff was that ¾th of the amount has not been deposited within one week of the earlier payment and Condition No.9 contained in Ex.A1 clearly speaks that ¼th of the amount has to be deposited and within one week of the above, ¾th of the amount has to be deposited. The admitted case of the plaintiff was that ¾th of the amount has not been deposited within one week of the earlier payment and Condition No.9 contained in Ex.A1 clearly speaks that ¼th of the amount has to be deposited and within one week of the above, ¾th of the amount has to be deposited. Contention of the appellant is that ¾th amount was to be deposited at the time of taking of possession but no such condition has been incorporated in the document Ex.A1 and when the appellant himself has not performed part of his contract, he cannot ask for the injunction and court below has rightly held that the appellant himself is guilty of breach of contract as he has not deposited the remaining ¾th amount of consideration and respondents have rightly relied on the judgment of Supreme Court in Jawahar Lal Wadhwa and Anr. v. Haripada Chakroberty : AIR 1989 SC 606 , where it has been held that when a party to the contract commits a breach of the contract, other party to the contract may treat the breach as putting an end to the contract and sue for damages and cannot ask for the specific performance. Here in the present case, appellant himself is guilty of breach hence, he cannot ask for injunction and even for damages because he himself has failed to perform part of his contract by not depositing ¾th amount of consideration. Hence, finding of the court below on Issue No.1 needs no interference. 9. Issue No. 4 has been framed as regards to notice u/S.143 of the Act of 2001. Admittedly, the society had entered into the contract in the business of the society and Section 143 of the Act of 2001 reads as follows:- "143. Notice necessary in suits. - No suit shall be instituted against a cooperative society or any of its officers in respect of any act touching the constitution, management or the business of the society until the expiration of two months next after notice in writing has been delivered to the Registrar, or left at his office, stating the cause of action the name description and place of residence of the plaintiff, and the relief which he claims and the plaint shall contain a statement that such notice has been so delivered or left". The appellant has also not served any notice prior to institution of the suit. The transaction was in relation to the business of the society and act, which has been complained of is concerned with the business of the society but no notice has been given to the Registrar as required u/S.143 of the Act of 2001 hence, suit is not maintainable and reliance has rightly been placed on the judgment of this Court in Khubilal v. Power House Karamchari Girah Nirman Sahkari Samiti : 1973(1) WLN 6. Hence issue No. 4 stands decided in favour of respondents. 10. The further contention of the respondents is that suit is barred by Section 14 of the Act of 1963 and Issue No. 8 has specifically been framed for the same and decided against the appellant by the trial court. Admittedly, contract was for delivery of specific property and nature of the contract was determinable and when nature of contract is determinable, it cannot be enforced as per Section 14 (1)(c) of the Act of 1963 and suit filed by the plaintiff for injunction is barred and reliance has rightly been placed on the judgment of Delhi High Court in Sushil Chopra & Anr. v. M/s. Zamil New Delhi dated 23/09/2009 delivered in IA No. 3331/2009, IA No. 6232/2009 and IA No. 6237/2009 in CS (OS) No. 480/2009 and judgment of the Kolkata High Court in Sushil Kumar Agarwal v. Kalidas Sadhu dated 18/02/2009 delivered in F.A. No. 175 of 2007 with C.A.N. 7245 of 2008, where it has been held that suit for specific performance of contract for construction of a building is not maintainable under the provisions of Section 14(1)(c) of the Act of 1963. In the light of the above, Issue No. 8 has rightly been answered against the appellant particularly when appellant himself has not fulfilled the condition as per publication Ex.A1. 11. Further contention of the respondent is that simpliciter suit for injunction is not maintainable when injunction has been asked to restrain on alienation and reliance has been placed on the judgment of Andhra Pradesh High Court in Peruri Manikyamba v. Agraharapu Veera Venkata Satyanarayana Murthy & Anr. : 2014(2) Civil Court Cases 36 (A.P.) (DB), where it has been held that injunction for restraining on alienation is not available in a simpliciter suit for injunction. : 2014(2) Civil Court Cases 36 (A.P.) (DB), where it has been held that injunction for restraining on alienation is not available in a simpliciter suit for injunction. Such prayer could be made only in a suit for specific performance of an agreement. Here in the present case, facts are quite similar. The appellant want injunction on alienation, whereas he has not complied with the terms of the contract and contract has been terminated by sending the money back and when he himself is at fault for non-performance of the contract, he cannot sue simply for injunction and in the light of the above, the suit is not maintainable. 12. The other contention of the respondent is that when a proper remedy is available, suit is barred u/S.41(h) of the Act of 1963 and reliance has been placed on the judgments of Allahabad High Court in State of U.P. & Anr. v. Tara Singh Jaiswal : 2013(1) Civil Court Cases 395 (Allahabad) (DB) and Rajendra Kumar v. Mahendra Kumar Mittal and others : AIR 1992 Allahabad 35, where it has been held that when equally efficacious relief can be obtained in a suit for specific performance of contract, injunction cannot be granted. Here in the present case also, appellant has not asked for specific performance of the contract and he only needed injunction and simpliciter suit for injunction is not maintainable in the light of above proposition. 13. Further contention has been raised as regards to limitation. Issue No.5 has been framed for the same, which has been answered in favour of the appellant but contention of the respondent is that he is entitled to object on the same in the light of Order 41, Rule 22 CPC. Admittedly, by Ex.6 dated 04/02/1994, money has been returned to the plaintiff and at that time, it has been made clear to the appellant that respondent is not ready and willing to comply with the promise or perform contract and cause of action starts but suit has not been filed within three years and admittedly, suit has been filed on 15/07/1999, which is time barred but the court below has erroneously decided Issue No.5 in favour of the appellant. 14. 14. In view of above, findings of the court below as regards to Issues No.1, 2, 3 & 8 need no interference and Issues No.4 & 5 have also been answered against the appellant hence, no interference is needed in the judgment and decree passed by the court below. Hence, the appeal deserves to be dismissed and the same is hereby dismissed. The record be sent back to the court below forthwith. Appeal dismissed.