IMPORTANT POINT
An appellate court may interfere with a trial court's injunction order if the essential ingredients of prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss are not established by the plaintiff.

JUDGMENT :

1. With the consent of learned advocates for the parties and considering the issue involved in the matter, the present Appeal from Order is taken up for final disposal.

2. By filing present Appeal from Order under Section 104 and Order 43, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as “the CPC” for short), the appellant has challenged the validity and legality of the order dated 19.10.2024 passed below application for notice of motion, Exhs.6 & 7 by the learned Chamber Judge, Court No.14, City Civil Court, Ahmedabad in Civil Suit No.328/2024, whereby the application preferred by the original plaintiff came to be allowed.

3. Heard learned advocate, Mr. D.K. Puj for the appellants and learned advocate, Mr. Vivek Bhamare for the respondent.

4. Learned advocate, Mr. Puj submitted that the appellants herein are the original defendants in the suit being Civil Suit No.328/2024 preferring by the respondent herein, who are original plaintiff. He submitted that the suit was filed for the recovery of the amount of Rs.16,20,000/- from the original defendants. He referred to the facts of the case as mentioned in the plaint and submitted that it is the specific case of the original plaintiff that one advertisement was published in the newspaper for the post of Consultant-cum-Accountant and in pursuant to the said advertisement, the original plaintiff approached the original defendants and, thereafter, he was appointed on the said post and started job from 01.04.2023 and also worked there during the period between 01.04.2023 to 30.07.2023. He submitted that within a period of one week, he was convinced by the partners of the partnership firm that if he will invest amount in their business, in that event, he will earn huge volume of amount, therefore, the original plaintiff had given Rs.15,00,000/- in two installments and, thereafter, he was directed to work in the firm but he was not paid salary of two months, therefore, the original plaintiff had issued notice through his advocate but despite receipt of the notice, the original defendants had not paid the amount of salary as well as amount advanced from him, as a result of which, the original plaintiff has filed aforesaid suit and along with the suit, an application for notice of motion, Exhs.6 & 7 came to be filed, which came to be allowed granting injunction in favour of the original plaintiff, against which, the present Appeal from Order has been preferred.

5. Learned advocate submitted that it is an admitted position of fact that the appellants are the partners of partnership firm, which came into existence in the year 1996 and the said firm has been carrying out business since last more than 28 years and turnover of the said partnership firm is more than Rs.25.00 crores per annum. He submitted that admittedly at the time of institution of the suit, the original plaintiff has come with a specific case that there was no document executed between the original plaintiff and the original defendants and xerox copy of the share certificate, allotment letter as well as possession letter of the property were given to him as a security. He submitted that in fact, the original defendants have not made signature upon the said document. He submitted that in fact, for the purchase of the plant, it was decided to pay rs.50,00,000/-, out of which, Rs.15,00,000/- were paid but remaining amount has not been paid and, thereafter, the original plaintiff had made issues and with absolute false and frivolous story, suit has been filed. He submitted that for the purpose of seeking injunction from the court concerned, the party has to come with a specific case that the original defendants are intending to sale and/ or alienate the suit property and thereby trying to create third party rights. He referred to the cause of action mentioned in the plaint as well as the reliefs prayed for in the plaint and submitted that nowhere in the entire plaint, it is pleaded by the original pl