PREMCHAND JAIN Vs. JUPITER JEWEL TECH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellants in both the above appeals are the plaintiffs No 1 to 3 in the Civil Suit No.876 of 2007. THEse two appeals arise out of a common order, dated 30.11.2007 passed by the learned single judge dismissing the applications filed by the appellants in the said suit viz., O.A.No.1145 of 2007 for injunction restraining the respondents/defendants from in any way dealing with the property more fully described in the schedule to the Judges Summons by way of sale , mortgage, lien , lease or otherwise pending disposal of the suit and another application Viz., A.No.6696 of 2007 for an order of attachment before judgment of the property more fully described in the schedule to the Judges Summons as security for realization of the amount claimed in the said suit pending disposal of the suit.

(2.) THE brief facts, which are necessary to decide the merits of the contentions raised by the appellants questioning the order of dismissal dated 30.11.2007 passed by the learned single judge, are as follows:

(3.) CHALLENGING the above said findings, the learned senior counsel for the appellants contended that the learned Single Judge has erred in coming to the conclusion that there is no document showing delivery of 19 kg. of gold which conclusion is falsified by the fact that in the income-tax returns filed by the appellants, they (the appellants) have made a declaration about the purchase of gold and deposit of the same with the respondents in grams. If the weight of the gold as mentioned in the income-tax returns is taken as 20742 grams it would be equivalent to 18.999 kg. (19 kgs.). Therefore, the finding of the learned Judge that no document was available to prove prima facie case of the appellants for delivery of 19 kg. of gold to the respondents is not correct. In the above circumstances we are unable to accept this argument of the appellants for the reason that there is no direct document between the parties to establish the delivery of 19 kg. of gold by the appellants to the respondents. When the appellants were careful enough to receive the blank promissory notes and blank cheques it is surprising as to why they have not obtained any receipt from the respondents for delivery of gold is a matter of evidence. Hence no reliance can be placed at this stage on the income-tax returns for granting interim order, on the basis of the self-made statements, in the absence of any other supporting and clinching evidence. In fact, in para 17 of the impugned order the learned Single Judge has given detailed reasons for discarding this argument.