Inderjeet Singh, J.

1. The instant appeal has been filed by the appellant against the order dated 23.08.2017 passed by the Additional District & Session Judge, No. 17, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur in Temporary Injunction Application No. 33/2016 (C.I.S. No. CMC/304/2016), whereby the temporary injunction application filed by the appellants-plaintiffs (hereinafter referred to as 'Appellants) was dismissed.

2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellants have filed a suit under Order 7 Rule 1 CPC for declaration and permanent injunction. The appellants also filed an application for temporary injunction under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC along with main suit stating therein that the respondent No. 1 had a meager shareholding of 9.34% and by defrauding the Company Director and other shareholders in collusion with Respondent No. 2 and officers of Respondent No. 3 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Bank') mortgaged the Company property with the Bank in violation of the memorandum and Articles of Association of the Company. It was further stated that the respondent No. 1 did not have the requisite authority to mortgage the company properties. It was also stated that the appellants for the first time came to know of the fact relating to the mortgage of property when a letter dated 14.05.2016 issued by the Bank under Section 13(4) of Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as 'SARFAESI Act') was received by the Company. The appellants thereafter inquired with respondents No. 1 & 2 regarding the same. The complete picture of the fraudulent credit came to the notice of the appellants when they obtained copies of the proceedings pending before Debt Recovery Tribunal with respect to the properties of the Company. It was also stated that the respondent No. 1 without any lawful justification got the company inducted as partner in the firm of respondent No. 2 by virtue of deed of partnership dated 01.06.2016. Thereafter on the basis of a concocted meeting of the Board of Directors of the Company allegedly dated 28.06.2016 constructed a fraudulent impression that respondent No. 1 under authorization of the company was entitled to mortgage the Company properties comprising of Plot No. G-857-A and Plot No. 857-B situated at Road No. 14 Vishvakarma Industrial Area, Jaipur, for availing credit facility in favour of Respondent No.2. The contention of the appellants was that on the basis of such concocted meeting dated 28.06.2016 no right accrued in favour of the Bank to initiate recovery proceedings of taking possession or auctioning of the secured assets.

3. The respondent No. 1 & 2 filed reply to the temporary injunction application and denied the allegations made against them.

4. The Bank also filed reply to the temporary injunction application stating therein that all the documents pertaining to the loan and mortgage of the company assets were executed by the Company in pursuance of the meeting of Board of Directors dated 28.06.2012 and further on 30.06.2012, the company had executed the guarantee documents in its capacity as partner of Respondent No. 2. The company had also created a legal charge in accordance with Section 125 of the Companies Act 1956 and Director of the Company had submitted the required document to the Registrar of Companies in this regard. It was also stated that the RIICO had issued a no objection letter dated 29.06.2012 in favour of the Bank and for authentication of the resolution passed in meeting dated 28.06.2012 a certificate was issued by Shri Mukesh Gupta, Charted Accountant and A. Bafna & Company. It was further stated by the Bank that a total amount of Rs. 405 Lacs has to be recovered from appellant company which had executed the guarantee and mortgaged the assets for securing the credit facility to respondent No. 2. The charge on company assets was created pursuant to resolution dated 28.06.2012 passed by Board of Directors of