ALWAR PRAKASHAN Vs. K K SHRIMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SINCE common question of law and facts are involved in all these appeals filed by the defendant -appellants arising out of the orders allowing the applications filed by the plaintiffs under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2, CPC as also the applications filed under Order 38, Rule 5, CPC, therefore, they are being decided by this common judgment.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts of the case are that plaintiffs filed civil suits for recovery of loan amount against the defendants. Along with the suits, the plaintiffs filed applications under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2, C.P.C. alleging therein that the defendants with a view to defrauding the creditors intend or threaten to dispose of the property and prayed to restrain the defendants from selling, mortgaging or alienating the property. The plaintiffs also filed applications under Order 38 Rule 5, CPC alleging therein that the defendants with intent to obstruct and delay the execution of decree that may be passed against them are about to dispose of the property mentioned in the applications. The learned Trial Court, having found prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss in favour of the plaintiffs allowed the applications filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2, CPC vide different orders and granted temporary injunctions thereby restraining the defendants from selling, mortgaging, creating any charge and/or transferring in any manner any part of the property shown in the applications for temporary injunction. The Trial Court also allowed the applications filed under Order 38 Rule 5, CPC and directed the defendant appellants to furnish an undertaking and surety bond within a period of one month to produce and place at the disposal of the Court the property mentioned in para 4 of the application in case the plaintiffs' suits are decreed, failing which orders shall be issued to attach the property before judgment.

(3.) SO far as present 3 appeals are concerned, it may be mentioned that the plaintiffs along with their suits filed applications under Order 38, Rule 5, CPC as also under Order 39, Rule 1 and 2, CPC and, therefore, the defendants have challenged both the orders passed on the applications filed under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2, CPC and Order 38, Rule 5, CPC and that being the reason the present three appeals are decided by separate judgments.