- (1.) HEARD counsel for the parties.
(2.) THIS F. A. F. O. is directed against the impugned award dated 20-11-1996 passed by the trial Court restraining respondent Nos. 1 & 2 from realising Rs. 6,31,818/-from the plaintiffs. The facts are that the plaintiffs entered into an agreement for taking a term loan with defendant No. 7, namely, the U. P. Financial Corporation (U. P. F. C.) and under the agreement the U. PF. C. had granted a term loan of Rs. 92,000/- to the plaintiffs and an additional term loan of Rs. 70,000/- had been granted to the plaintiffs. When the plaintiffs defaulted, the U. PF. C. issued a notice under Section 25 of the U. P State Financial Corporation Act on 2-1-1986 and pursuant to that made an adver tisement for sale of the assets of the plaintiffs unit M/s Star Agro for the estab lishment of which the term loan was taken, pursuant to the advertisement, the plaintiffs Unit was sold to the highest bid der viz. Sanjay Kumar Jain for Rs. 1,60,000/-and the possession was delivered to the pur chaser on 9-4-1988. As full recovery of the outstanding dues could not be made from the sale of the unit of the plaintiffs, the U. PF. C. issued a personal recovery certifi cate against the plaintiffs. Aggrieved the plaintiffs filed a suit for injunction against the U. PF. C. (defen dant No. 7) restraining it to recover the dues outstanding against the Unit (defendant No. 3) and also made an application for ad interim injunction stating that one agree ment each on 15-6-1983 and 24-6-1983 was made between them and respondents No. 4 to 6 shifting the liability of the former to the latter. The contention of the plaintiffs is that by the said agreements they cease to be liable to pay under the original agreement, admittedly entered into between the plain tiffs and the U. PF. C. and that the liability to repay the loan taken by the plaintiffs under the original agreement was transferred to defendant Nos. 4 to 6 by subsequents agree ments entered into between the plaintiffs and defendant Nos. 4 to 6.
(3.) THE contention of the U. PF. C. (ap pellant) is that it has nothing to do with defendant Nos. 4 to 6, because there was no privity of contract between it and defendant Nos. 4 to 6 as the agreement for taking the loan was entered into between the plaintiffs and the U. PF. C. In this regard, legal position is very clear. The plaintiffs cannot be absolved of their liability simply because they entered into fresh agreements with defendant Nos. 4 to 6. The U. PF. C. is not supposed to take congizance of any agreement entered into between the plaintiffs and defendant Nos. 4 to 6. Admittedly, the plaintiffs entered into agreements with the U. PF. C. in regard to the term loan and the loan was advanced to the plaintiffs thereunder by the U. PF. C. on these facts no ad interim injunction could have been granted against defendant Nos. 1 & 2 who proceeded at the behest of defen dant No. 7 for making the recovery from the plaintiffs.;