Prasanta Kumar Deka, J.

1. Heard Mr. RC Sancheti, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/ petitioner. Also heard Mr. D Mozumder, the learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. J Islam, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 5.

2. This is an application under Order 39, Rule 1 and 2 of the CPC for granting temporary injunction. The petitioner as the plaintiff filed a suit against the present respondents for declaration and injunction. Along with the said suit, an application under Order 39, Rule 1 and 2 of the CPC was also filed thereby praying for grant of temporary injunction, which was numbered as Misc. (J) Case No. 383/2016 arising out of Title Suit No. 261/2016. In the said petition, the present petitioner prayed for restraining the present respondent Nos. 1 to 4 from paying the entire bond amount on its maturity to the present respondent No. 5. However, the said petition for temporary injunction was rejected vide order dated 31.08.2016 passed by the Court of the learned Civil Judge, No. 3, Kamrup (Metro) at Guwahati. Thereafter, an appeal has been preferred under Order 43, Rule 1R and along with the said appeal, this present petition under Order 39 and Rule 1 and 2 of the CPC has been preferred with a prayer similar to the one made in Misc.(J) Case No. 383/2016.

3. This Court vide order dated 23.09.2016 in the ad-interim order directed the present respondent Nos. 1 to 4 restraining from releasing any amount in excess of 50% of the total sum due under the 500 number of bonds described in the schedule of the petition. The respondent No. 5 entered appearance, who is incidentally the son of Paras Nath Yadav, who as per the submission of the present petitioner by way of a WILL bequeathed amongst other the said bonds issued by the respondent No. 1 to the petitioner.

4. The respondent No. 5 through his affidavit-in-opposition, disputed the claim of the present petitioner and further it was brought to the notice of this Court that his father Paras Nath Yadav did not execute any will in respect of his property, both movable and immovable in favour of the present petitioner. The alleged will dated 31.08.2014 purportedly shown to be registered on 03.03.2015 is a fraudulent one, which is under challenge in a suit bearing Case No. 1047/2015 pending in the Court of Civil Judge (CD), Gorakhpur, Uttar Pradesh filed by the mother of the respondent No. 5. The said suit is filed against the present petitioner. The learned Civil Judge, Gorakhpur, Uttar Pradesh vide order dated 26.09.2015 directed to maintain status-quo in respect of ? (one third) schedule property and the said order has been extended till date.

5. It is also brought to the notice of this Court that the present petitioner had also instituted another suit pertaining to the said will bearing Case No. 854/2015 pending in the Court of learned Civil Judge (CD), Gorakhpur, Uttar Pradesh against his sister, Durgawati Devi, who is claimed to be the 2nd wife of Late Paras Nath Yadav. By way of the said affidavit-in-opposition, the said respondent No. 5 prays for dismissal of the present petition.

6. Mr. Sancheti submits that as per the will he is entitled to the bond issued by the respondent No. 1. The said bond was initially purchased by Late Paras Nath Yadav, who is the 1st holder of the said bond certificate and the 2nd holder is the respondent No. 5, who on the death of Late Paras Nath Yadav requested the respondent No. 5 to issue fresh bond by deleting the name of Late Paras Nath Yadav on his death.

7. It is also submitted that as per the Information Memorandum issued against the said bond that on the death of the 1st holder of the bond held jointly by two persons, a 3rd person may call on the company to register his name as successor of the deceased bond holder only on production of probate or letter of administration or succession certificate, etc. from the competent Court.

8. Mr. Sancheti submits that the present petitioner filed a Probate