Injunction can be granted if defendant intends to defraud creditors, and all necessary ingredients for injunctions must be fulfilled.

Khem Chand Sharma, J.- Since, common question of law and facts are involved in all these appeals filed by the defendants appellants arising out of the orders allowing the applications filed by the plaintiffs under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2, CPC as also the applications filed under Order 38 Rule 5, CPC, therefore, they are being decided by this common Judgment .

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that plaintiffs filed civil suits for recovery of loan amount against the defendants. Alongwith the suits, the plaintiffs filed applications under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2, CPC, alleging therein that the defendants with a view to defrauding the creditors intend or threaten to dispose of the property and prayed to restrain the defendants from selling, mortgaging or alienating the property. The plaintiffs also filed applications under Order 38 Rule 5, CPC, alleging therein that the defendants with intent to obstruct and delay the execution of decree that may be passed against them are about to dispose of the property mentioned in the applications. The learned trial Court, having found prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable loss in favour of the plaintiffs allowed the applications filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2, CPC, vide different orders and granted temporary injunctions thereby restraining the defendants from selling, mortgaging, creating any charge and/or transferring in any manner any part of the property shown in the applications for temporary injunction. The trial Court also allowed the applications filed under Order 38 Rule 5, CPC, and directed the defendant appellants to furnish an undertaking and surety bond within a period of one month to produce and place at the disposal of the Court the property mentioned in Para 4 of the application in case the plaintiffs suits are decreed, failing which orders shall be issued to attach the property before Judgment .

3. Before proceeding further, it is pertinent to mention here that in all 37 creditors from whom the defendants took loan filed separate suits for recovery of their loan amount totaling to Rs. 1,10,10,000/ -, alongwith applications under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2, CPC, praying same relief and the learned trial Court vide different orders granted same relief in favour of the plaintiffs, against which the defendants preferred 33 separate appeals before this Court, out of which 30 appeals have been decided today by common Judgment . Four Appeals bearing No. 1115/2005, 1116/2005, 1117/2005 and 1127/2005 have been filed challenging the orders passed on the applications filed under Order 38 Rule 5, CPC, in Civil Suit Nos. 144, 130, 127 and 129 of 2003, respectively. It may be stated that in the above four civil suits the defendants did not challenge the orders passed on the applications filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2, CPC, and thus the orders passed by the Court below on the applications under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2, CPC have attained finality. In this view of the matter, 30 appeals have become virtually infructuous as the orders passed on the applications filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2, CPC, shall remain intact in the above mentioned four suits. It also need be stated that relief of interlocutary injunction against the defendants in all the suits was prayed for against one and the same property.

3-A. So far as present 3 appeals are concerned, it may be mentioned that the plaintiffs alongwith their suits filed applications under Order 38 Rule 5, CPC, as also under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2, CPC, and, therefore, the defendants have challenged both the orders passed on the applications filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2, CPC and Order 39 Rule 5, CPC, and that being the reason the present three appeals are decided by separate Judgment s.

4. While deciding four appeals by a separate Judgment this Court observed that since the relief of attachment in all the suits was prayed for against one and the same property, therefore, the analogous conclusion would