JUDGMENT : 1. This second appeal is directed against the Judgment and Decree dated 12.08.2002 passed in A.S.No.176 of 2000 on the file of the Additional District Judge/Fast Track Court No.2 Chennai, reversing the Judgment and Decree dated 18.09.1998 passed in O.S.No.5884 of 1993 on the file of the XVII Assistant judge, City Civil Court, Chennai. 2. Parties are referred to as per their rankings in the trial Court. 3. Suit for mandatory injunction and compensation. 4. 2. Parties are referred to as per their rankings in the trial Court. 3. Suit for mandatory injunction and compensation. 4. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, is that the plaintiff purchased two numbers of 7.5 tonnes of air conditioners from the defendants by way of the invoice dated 27.06.1991 and the defendants had assured that the air conditioners supplied to the plaintiff are in good condition and also offered guarantee for a period of one year and accordingly, the air conditioners above stated had been installed by the plaintiff in his showroom and only for two days, the air conditioners functioned properly and thereafter, the unit broke down and the defendants replaced the defective parts and even thereafter, repeatedly the air conditioners did not function properly and failed for one reason or the other and accordingly, on the complaint lodged by the plaintiff repeatedly, the defendants attended to the complaint and rectified the mistakes in piecemeal and however, they were unsuccessful in carrying out the repairs to the satisfaction of the plaintiff and on account of the continuous defects and improper functioning of the air conditioners supplied by the defendants and as the defendants failed to effect the repairs beyond the warranty period and on the other hand, informing the plaintiff that the guarantee obligation, on the part of the defendants for the units supplied by them, had expired and accordingly, insisted the plaintiff to enter into a maintenance service contract for a sum of Rs.23,916/- and inasmuch as the air conditioners supplied by the defendants were found to be not functioning properly from the date of the installation and as the defendants are liable to replace the defective air conditioners with new machines and also continue to effect the service of the air conditioners supplied by them till the replacement of the same by new machines and on account of the supply of the defective machines, the plaintiff has suffered loss in his business and hence, according to the plaintiff, he has been necessitated to lay the suit against the defendants for appropriate reliefs. 5. The case of the defendants, in brief, is that the suit is not maintainable either in law or on facts. 5. The case of the defendants, in brief, is that the suit is not maintainable either in law or on facts. The reliefs sought for by the plaintiff against the defendants cannot be specifically enforced by the plaintiff as per the contract entered into between the parties with reference to the sale of air conditioners and it is true that the defendants supplied two numbers of 7.5 tonne of air conditioners to the plaintiff vide their invoice dated 27.06.1991 and the supply of the air conditioners was in consonance with the warranty terms and as per the warranty, the plaintiff was assured that for a period of 12 months, if any, failure occurs in the functioning of the air conditioner units, the same would be rectified and as per the warranty terms, there is no condition stipulated for the replacement of the defective machines with new machines as alleged by the plaintiff and accordingly, it is the case of the defendants that on the complaints received from the plaintiff about the non functioning of the air conditioners supplied, the same was attended to by the defendants and the defects were duly rectified, now and then and inasmuch as the warranty period got expired, the defendants had informed the plaintiff about the same and requested him to enter into a maintenance contract for the sum mentioned by the defendants and the reports of the defendants, while effecting the service requests of the plaintiff would go to show that the machines did not function due to fluctuation of the supply of electricity and despite the expiry of the warranty period and the insistence of the defendants to the plaintiff to enter into the service contract for a sum of Rs.23,916/-, the plaintiff refused to enter into the service contract and insisted the defendants to maintain the air conditioners, even after the warranty period had expired and inasmuch as there is no contract between the parties for the replacement of the defective units with new units and as the units supplied to the plaintiff got faulty on account of the fluctuation of the supply of electricity and improper maintenance of the units by the plaintiff and the warranty period had expired by 29.02.1993 and as the plaintiff refused to enter into the service contract with the defendants as directed by the defendants, it is the case of the defendants that the plaintiff is not entitled to the reliefs sought for and no loss had occurred to the plaintiff on account of the alleged improper functioning of the air conditioners and hence, the suit is liable to be dismissed. 6. In support of the plaintiff's case, PW1 was examined and Exs.A1 to A13 were marked. On the side of the defendants', DW1 was examined and Exs.B1 to B7 were marked. 7. On a consideration of the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the respective parties and the submissions made, the trial Court was pleased to dismiss the suit. On appeal preferred by the plaintiff, the first appellate Court, on an appreciation of the materials placed on record, granted the relief of mandatory injunction sought for by the plaintiff and dismissed the suit in other aspects and accordingly, allowed the appeal laid by the plaintiff in part. Impugning the same, the present second appeal has been preferred. 8. At the time of admission of the second appeal, the following substantial questions of law were formulated for consideration: “(i) Whether the lower appellate Court is right in granting the relief of Mandatory injunction directing the Appellants not to discontinue the service to the Air-conditioners supplied by the appellants to the respondent until the Air-conditioners are replaced especially when the prayer for replacement of the Air-conditioners have been rejected by both the Courts below? (ii) Is not the relief claimed in the suit beyond the scope of Section 41 of the Specific Relief Act?” 9. It is not in dispute that two numbers of air conditioners were supplied to the plaintiff by the defendants. It is further found, on the materials placed, that the defendants had admitted the warranty period of the same was available till 29.02.1993. It is further found that the air conditioners supplied by the defendants did not function properly, repeatedly due to various factors and it is further noted that on the complaints lodged by the plaintiff with reference to the same, the complaints were duly attended to by the defendants and the defects rectified. Now, according to the plaintiff, inasmuch as the air conditioners supplied by the defendants repeatedly failed on account of the inherent defects of the machines supplied and as the defendants failed to carry out the repairs, after a particular point of time i.e. after the guarantee period is over and on account of the malfunctioning of the air conditioners, the plaintiff has sustained loss in his business. It is the case of the plaintiff that the defendants are liable to replace the defective air conditioners with new machines and carry out the repairs of the machines supplied till the new machines are supplied and as on account of the improper functioning of the air conditioners, the plaintiff had sustained a loss of Rs.5,000/- every month and seeking necessary reliefs, the plaintiff has laid the suit. 10. The case of the defendants is that the machines supplied to the plaintiff got faulty due to the fluctuation in the supply of electricity in the plaintiff's show room and the improper maintenance of the machines by the plaintiff and the complaints lodged by the plaintiff with reference to the repairs were duly attended to and the defects got rectified and inasmuch as the plaintiff failed to enter into a maintenance contract with the defendants after the warranty period is over for a fixed sum as directed by the defendants and as the defendants had refused to effect the repairs free of cost beyond the warranty period and further according to the defendants, as there is no contract between the parties for the supply of new machines in the place of defective machines as such and as the plaintiff is not entitled to seek the services of the defendants for effecting the repairs free of cost beyond the warranty period and as no loss had occurred to the plaintiff as such on account of the alleged defects in the machines, according to the defendants, the plaintiff has no cause of action and hence, the suit is liable to be dismissed. 11. Materials placed on both sides point out that there were frequent repairs in the air conditioners installed in the plaintiff's show room and also point out that the same had been duly attended to by the defendants and the defects got rectified. The materials placed in connection with the same also point out that due to the fluctuation in the supply of electricity, the machines got faulty now and then. The fact remains that on several occasions, the machines failed and were duly attended to by the defendants and the units functioned thereafter. 12. It is found that the warranty period for the air conditioners ended on 29.02.1993 from the communications made between the parties. The fact remains that on several occasions, the machines failed and were duly attended to by the defendants and the units functioned thereafter. 12. It is found that the warranty period for the air conditioners ended on 29.02.1993 from the communications made between the parties. It is found that the defendants had directed the plaintiff to enter into a maintenance contract for a fixed sum and however, the same was not acceded to by the plaintiff for one reason or the other. Now, according to the plaintiff, inasmuch as the defectives machines were supplied, the defendants are liable to replace the defective machines with new machines and till that point of time, they are also further liable to effect or carry out the service free of cost and also claims that he has sustained loss in his business on account of the defective machines, hence, according to the plaintiff, he is entitled to obtain the reliefs as prayed for. 13. As far as the claim of the plaintiff that he has sustained loss in his business on account of the alleged defects in the air conditioners, the Courts below had rightly found that with reference to the above aspect of the case of the plaintiff, there is no material placed and accordingly, rejected the above said relief sought for by the plaintiff. There is no ground made out to interfere with the above said determination of the Courts below. In fact, the plaintiff has not chosen to enter appearance in this second appeal, despite service. 14. The terms of contract entered into between the parties vis-a-vis the supply of the air conditioners would go to show that the warranty period is only for a period of 12 months from the date of supply. However, insofar as this case is concerned, it is noted that the warranty period was extended up to 29.02.1993 and it is not the case of the plaintiff that the defendants had not carried out the defects pointed out in the air conditioners during the warranty period. On the other hand, as above seen, the defects pointed out had been duly attended to by the defendants during the warranty period free of cost and the machines were, accordingly, functioning. No doubt, there were continuous failures in the machines supplied. On the other hand, as above seen, the defects pointed out had been duly attended to by the defendants during the warranty period free of cost and the machines were, accordingly, functioning. No doubt, there were continuous failures in the machines supplied. However, when the contract entered into between the parties does not point out that the defendants had promised to replace the defective units with the new machines and as the contract entered into between the parties also does not enjoin the defendants to carry out the service of the machines supplied free of cost beyond the warranty period, it is found that the plaintiff cannot compel the defendants to supply the new machines for the defective units. When such an understanding had not been arrived at between the parties at the time of the sale of the air conditioners concerned, it is found that the first appellate Court had erroneously granted the relief in favour of the plaintiff beyond the terms of the contract entered into between the parties or beyond the undertaking given by the defendants at the time of the sale of the air conditioners concerned. The terms and conditions entered into between the parties, as seen from the materials, would go to show that the defendants had agreed to undertake the necessary repairs, if any, during the warranty period and accordingly, attended the defects as and when pointed out by the plaintiff and the machines were then functioning thereafter. In such view of the matter, the plaintiff cannot insist the defendants to carry out the repairs of the machines, if any, even beyond the statutory period free of cost. On the other hand, the defendants had already communicated to the plaintiff that he should enter into a service contract for a fixed sum for carrying out the repairs beyond the statutory period. On the other hand, the defendants had already communicated to the plaintiff that he should enter into a service contract for a fixed sum for carrying out the repairs beyond the statutory period. However, it is noted that as directed, the plaintiff had not entered into such a service maintenance contract with the defendants from a particular point of time and it is therefore seen that beyond the agreed time, the defendants are not liable to carry out the repair in the machines supplied free of cost and further, when there is no contract entered into between the parties for the replacement of defective units with the new machines, as rightly put forth by the defendants' counsel, the first appellate Court had, without any basis or materials on record, granted the relief of mandatory injunction sought for by the plaintiff, when the plaintiff has not shown his entitlement to obtain the said relief. 15. If the defendants had agreed to replace the defective units with new machines, at the time of the sale of the units, then it is open to the plaintiff to insist the defendants to replace the defective units with new machines as promised by them. Similarly, when the defendants had accepted to carry out the repairs in the machines supplied, on certain terms, upto to a particular point of time and beyond that, the plaintiff is not entitled to seek for carrying out the repairs free of cost on the part of the defendants and particularly, despite the communication from the defendants, the plaintiff has failed to enter into the maintenance contract with the defendants for the sum directed by them, it is found that the plaintiff cannot insist the defendants to carry out the repairs of the machines supplied free of cost beyond the guarantee period and in such view of the matter, it is found that the relief of mandatory injunction prayed for by the plaintiff is not based on any agreement/contract entered into between the parties and in such view of the matter, when it is found that such an agreement/contract cannot be specifically enforced by the plaintiff, the first appellate Court had erred in granting the relief as such in favour of the plaintiff. 16. 16. In the light of the above position, the relief of mandatory injunction granted by the first appellate Court is found to be not specifically enforceable by the plaintiff considering the terms and conditions agreed to between the parties at the time of the sale of air conditioners involved in the subject matter and further, when the parties had not entered into any agreement as such for the replacement of the defective air conditioners with new machines and the defendants had not agreed to carry out the repairs of the units supplied free of cost beyond the warranty period, in the light of the above position, the first appellate Court has erred in granting the relief of mandatory injunction, despite the plaintiff failing to establish his entitlement to the same as per the terms of the contract entered into with the defendants vis-a-vis the sale of the air conditioners. The substantial questions of law formulated in this second appeal are accordingly answered against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendants. In conclusion, the Judgment and Decree dated 12.08.2002 passed in A.S.No.176 of 2000 on the file of the Additional District Judge/Fast Track Court No.2 Chennai are set aside and the Judgment and Decree dated 18.09.1998 passed in O.S.No.5884 of 1993 on the file of the XVII Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai are confirmed. Accordingly, the second appeal is allowed with costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition, if any, is closed.