The plaintiff must establish a prima facie case and balance of convenience to warrant the grant of an interim injunction.

1. The brief facts of the case are as follows:-

The appellant herein / plaintiff has filed original suit in O.S.No.51 of 2013, on the file of Principal District Judge, Thanjavur, against the respondents / defendants, stating that the defendants 1 and 2 borrowed a sum of Rs.2,99,40,000/- from the plaintiff / appellant herein and agreeing to repay the same with interest at the rate of 36% annum. The said amount had not been repaid by the defendants. Hence, the suit has been filed for recovery of money against the defendants.

2. The plaintiff sought an interim order of injunction restraining the defendants 3 and 4, viz., S.Rajinikanth and R.Meenakshi not to alienate the properties described in the accompanying petition till the disposal of the suit and also pass an ex-parte order of ad-interim injunction to the like effect to the disposal of the petition.

3. The third defendant, viz., S.Rajinikanth had filed a counter statement and resisted in the interlocutory application in I.A.No.87 of 2013, stating that the third and fourth defendants are neither guarantors nor borrowers of the alleged suit loan. Further, they have never given any undertaking to pay the said loan amount. The defendants 3 and 4 neither executed any undertaking letters nor promised to pay the said loan amount. The third defendant further stated that the documents annexed along with the plaint is invalid and inadmissible in evidence. Further, the defendants 3 and 4 have no intention to alienate the schedule mentioned properties.

4. On considering the averments of both parties, the learned Judge had framed an issue, viz.,

"Whether the plaintiff has made out a case for granting interim injunction as required under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of Cr.P.C?"

The learned Judge, after hearing the arguments of the highly competent counsels on either side and on perusing the documents enclosed with the plaint, dismissed the said Interlocutory Application in I.A.No.87 of 2013 in O.S.No.51 of 2013, dated 29.08.2013 and assigned the reasons that:-

(i) It appears that no prayer for permanent injunction restraining the defendants from alienating the properties was prayed for in the suit by paying sufficient Court fee.

(ii) Further, the second reason was that the plaintiff has neither come forward with the name of the proposed purchaser nor produced any other document to show that the respondents had undertaken not to alienate the property without repaying the loan amount to the plaintiff. Hence, the learned Judge passed the said order. Further, the learned Judge observed that the plaintiff has not made out a case to show that the two principles viz., prima-facie case and balance of convenience are in his favour.

5. Aggrieved by the said order, the plaintiff has filed the above appeal.

6. The highly competent counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the plaintiff had initiated a suit against the four defendants for recovery of a sum of Rs.2,99,40,000/- with interest of a sum of Rs.98,80,200/-. In order to recover the said amount by way of a money suit, the plaintiff had executed 28 valid documents. The third and fourth defendants have duly executed an undertaking letter on 15.11.2012 in favour of the plaintiff. As such, the third and fourth defendants are also jointly and severally liable to pay the said loan amount. Further, the defendants 1 and 2 had executed promissory notes in favour of the plaintiff and promised them to repay the said principal amount with interest on demand. As such, the plaintiff had approached the trial Court for judgment and decree.

7. In the meanwhile, the third and fourth defendants, who are the son-in-law and daughter of the first and second defendants are taking speedy steps to alienate the suit property. The first and second respondents have also colluded with the third and fourth defendants in order to avoid and evade payment of loan amount. Under the circumstances, the interim order is absolutely necessary in order to safeguard the plaintiff's i