G.D. Dubey, J. - (1.) THIS appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order of Civil Judge Aligarh allowing an application for temporary injunction. The defendant -appellants has been directed by the learned Civil Judge to open the lock put in the factory and allowed it to run. The facts of the case are not disputed. The plaintiff -respondent had applied for a loan of Rs. 4,93,967 -00. The Defendant -appellants had sanctioned a loan of Rs. 4,93,000.00. The cost of the project computed by the plaintiff -respondent was Rs. 7,43,000.00. The plaintiff -respondent was paid Rs. 3,58,000,00 on 29.12.1985. The plaintiff -appellant, had, thereafter, signed the loan document. Rs. 45,100.00 were paid on 20.3.1986, Rs. 40,300,00 was paid on 19.6.1986 and Rs. 48,000.00 was paid on 4.7.1987. It has been alleged by the plaint that the amount was paid to the plaintiff -respondent with a great difficulty. Even the amount was sanctioned on 8.4.1985 it was actually disbursed on 31.12.1985. It has been alleged that the defendant -appellants had to pay a sum of Rs. 4,06,000.00 for the cost of the Die casting machine but the defendant -appellants had not paid this whole amount. The other amount which were required to be released were not released in time. It was urged that on account of delay of the defendant -appellants the plaintiff -respondent was unnecessarily burdened with interest. He could start his factory in November 1987. Instead of promoting the industry the defendant -appellants issued a letter on 10.12.1987 demanding Rs. 4,91,400 00 as principal and Rs. 1,01,723.49 as interest. By this letter the plaintiff -respondent was asked to pay the amount within 10 days Thereafter the defendant -appellants had put the lock on the plaintiff -respondent's factory on 9th March, 1988. The plaintiff -respondent has alleged that he does not dispute the receipt of the amount advanced and that he is liable to pay. He has also alleged that he is intending to pay the amount according to the direction of the Court.
(2.) THE Annexure CA -2 is copy of the written statement where the defend ant -appellant denied that any delay was caused in the disbursement of the loan. The defendant -appellant also urged that as the plaintiff -respondent had defaulted in payment of the amount' the officers had put lock over the factory. It was alleged in paragraph 31 of the written statement that there is a specific agreement in para 5 that interest shall be payable quarterly each year i.e. on 31st March, 30th June, 30th September and 31st day of December every year. The payment of first such amount had become due on 30.6.1985 but the same had not been paid. It has not been denied that the defendant -appellant's officers had put the lock of the Corporation on the door of the factory on 9th March, 1988. The plaintiff respondent had made a prayer for a temporary injunction for removal of the lock on the facts mentioned in the plaint and as narrated above. The defendant -appellant had contested this application and after hearing the parties the learned Civil Judge had passed the impugned order.
(3.) THE affidavit and counter -affidavit have been exchanged between the parties. Hence with the consent of the parties we are disposing of this appeal at the admission stage.;