- (1.) This appeal is directed against an order dated 26.1 1.91 whereby an earlier injunction order granted by the Court below on 4.7.91 has been declared to be void and ineffective.
(2.) It appears that the appellant had filed a suit to restrain the respondent from realising the alleged arrears of loan amount by attachment, sale and possession over the property in dispute.
(3.) The respondent appeared and contested the suit. The Court below, after hearing both the parties, passed an ad interim injunction order on 4.7.91 holding that the plaintiff had a prima facie case as also balance of convenience in his favour and also it was likely to cause irreparable injury in case the injunction was refused. However, during the course of argument the respondents had prayed that sometime may be granted to enable it to file certain documentary evidence. Keeping in view this prayer the court granted a month's time but also considered it necessary to issue temporary injunction in the mean time. Accordingly application 6-C by which a prayer for grant of temporary injunction was made, was directed to be put up for orders on 30.7.91 and for that period temporary injunction was granted restraining the respondents from attaching putting to auction or causing damage to the unit in question or to close it down. It also directed that the plaintiff's possession will not be disturbed in pursuance of the said proceedings. It appears that when the limited period for which the injunction was granted was to expire the plaintiffs made an application for extension of the interim order. This application was opposed by the respondents on the ground that compliance of Order 39 Rule 2 (g) Civil Procedure Code had not been made as no security was demanded from the appellant as required under the law. While considering this application the Court was of the view that the demand for security was essential and not temporary injunction could be granted to stay recovery proceedings unless the party seeking injunction gave security for the amount in question. The Court held the order dated 4.7.91 to be void and was totally ineffective for the above reasons and hence the application for extension of stay order was rejected.;