Sunil Ambwani, J. - (1.) WE have heard learned counsels appearing for the parties. All these Civil Miscellaneous Appeals arise out of an interim injunction order dated 10.02.2011, passed by the trial court in Civil Misc. Case No. 36/2010, by which an interim injunction was granted, to the effect that plaintiffs -defendants No. 1 to 31 and defendants Np.36 to 43, will not sell, transfer, nor will create any substantial charge over the properties, mentioned in Schedule "Ka" to "Cha". The trial court further directed that both the parties will, in respect of their Companies, which are controlled by them, or of which they are partners, and the Firms, which are mentioned in Schedule " - to " -, will submit their six monthly and yearly accounts, duly audited. The rest of the prayers were rejected.
(2.) BRIEF facts, as stated in the plaint, giving rise to the suit, and the written statement, are stated in the judgment of learned Single Judge dated 14.03.2012, as follows: - - "2. The short facts giving rise to the present appeals are that the respondent Nos. 1 to 5 (original plaintiffs) have filed the suit before the lower court seeking various reliefs against the present appellants and other respondents (original -defendants).The reliefs claimed in the suit inter alia are for the decree against the defendants Nos. 1 to 31 for the partition of the properties mentioned in para 17 read with schedules 'KA' to 'CHHA' by metes and bounds, and for the declaration of 1/2 share of the plaintiffs in the said properties. The plaintiffs have also prayed for mandatory injunction directing the defendants Nos. 1 to 31 to act upon the family settlement dated 20.12.07 and to hand -over the possession of the properties to the plaintiffs as per the said settlement, as also sought permanent injunction restraining the defendant Nos. 1 to 31 from transferring or selling or creating any interest in the properties mentioned in the said schedules 'KA' to 'CHHA', which were Joint Family Properties. The plaintiffs have also sought for the relief against the said defendants for rendition of accounts in respect of the said properties. The respondent Nos. 1 to 5 (the plaintiffs) had also filed an application being Civil Misc. Application No. 36/2010, seeking temporary injunction during the pendency of the suit. The said application was resisted by the concerned defendants by filing their respective written statements/replies. The lower court after hearing the learned counsels for the parties and considering the documents on record, partly allowed the said application by the impugned order dated 10.2.2011, whereby the lower court has restrained the defendant Nos. 1 to 31 and 36 to 43 from selling, transferring or creating any substantive charge over the immovable properties mentioned in the ' schedules 'KA' to 'CHHA', and further directing all the parties to produce periodically the audited or unaudited accounts of the companies/partnership firms, managed and controlled by the respective parties. Being aggrieved by the said order, the respective appellants have filed the present appeals. 3. Assailing the impugned order passed by the lower court, the learned counsel Mr. N.M. Sharma for the appellants M/s. Raghuvar India Ltd. (original defendant No. 14), vehemently submitted that the suit of the plaintiffs in the present form is not maintainable in the eye of law, in as much as the suit has been filed by Shri Babu Lal s/o Ram Niwas along with Saurabh Agrotech Pvt. Ltd., which is a company incorporated under the Companies Act and " also along with two partnership firms registered under me Partnership Act and by the HUF of Babu Lal, seeking partition of the properties mentioned in the Schedules annexed to the plaint and that too against the set of companies, which have been shown as the assets of the H.U.F. He also submitted that the said plaintiff Babu Lal, though seeking partition of the Joint Family Properties has not impleaded his own sons and other coparceners as parties to the suit and has not included the properties owned and managed by the plaintiffs in the schedules annexed to the plaint. In short, according to Mr. Sharma, when the suit itself is bad for non -joinder of necessary parties and for mis -joinder of the parties and of causes of action, and when the suit is not tenable in the eye of law, the lower court should not have granted any temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiffs. Mr. Sharma further submitted that the order passed by the lower court is thoroughly misconceived and if allowed to stand, would cause not only hardship to the appellant companies but also would practically affect the day to day businesses of the said companies. The learned senior counsel Mr. A.K. Sharma appearing for M/S Vijay Solvex Ltd. (original defendant No. 24), in support of the submissions made by learned counsel Mr. N.M. Sharma, submitted that the lower court had not taken into consideration the contentions raised by the concerned defendant in its reply with regard to the partition of Joint Family Properties, which had already taken place in the year 1959, and which was also subsequently ratified by the plaintiff Babu Lal himself on his becoming major. According to learned counsel Mr. Sharma, the appellant company is not only a separate legal entity but also a listed company and, therefore, there was no question of partition of the said company as sought for by the plaintiffs in the suit. Mr. Sharma also referring to the averments made in the plaint, more particularly in para 12, submitted that even according to the plaintiffs there was no family settlement, with regard to M/s. Vijay Solvex or M/s. Raghuvar India Ltd., and that the said companies have been included only in the Schedule 'GHA' as if they are the assets of the Joint Family Properties. He also submitted that the lower court had failed to appreciate that the plaintiffs had not been able to show even prima facie that the corpus of the defendant companies was provided by the coparceners of the joint family."
(3.) LEARNED Single Judge partly allowed the Misc. Appeals, set aside the injunction granted against the defendants, from transferring, selling, or alienating the properties, or creating charge over the immovable properties. So far as the production of audited and unaudited accounts is concerned, the order of the trial court was confirmed and the injunction was modified accordingly. Civil Appeal No. 7174 of 2014 (Babu Lal and Ors. v. M/s. Vijay Solvex Ltd. and Ors.) and other Civil Appeals No. 7175 of 2014, 7195 to 7201 of 2014 and 7177 of 2014 were filed in Supreme Court against the orders passed by learned Single Judge on 14.3.2012. Initially, the matter was referred to the Mediation of Hon'ble Mr. Justice B.N. Agarwal, a former Judge of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. He could not conclude the proceedings, and thus, the matter was decided by the Supreme Court, and was remitted to this Court for fresh disposal, after hearing the parties. Paragraphs 7 to 9 of the judgment of the Supreme Court are quoted as below: - - "7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. In the present case, the, parties have raised similar pleas which were taken before the High Court. However, we are of the opinion that while dealing with a matter relating to vacation of order of temporary injunction, it was not open for the High Court to give a finding on the main issue relating to maintainability of the suit and the family settlement reached between the parties. 8. In view of the finding aforesaid, we are inclined to interfere with the judgment and order dated 14th March, 2012 passed by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Bench at Jaipur in S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 2218 of 2011 etc. We, accordingly, set aside the impugned judgment and remit back the' matter to the High Court for its fresh disposal after hearing the parties. 9. The appeal stand disposed of with aforesaid observations." ;