JUDGMENT A.N. Verma, J. - This is a defendant's appeal against an order passed by learned First Additional Civil Judge, Varanasi, issuing. of interim injunction restraining the appellant from holding an All India Carpet Trad;' Fair at Hotel de Paris, Varanasi, between N. February 6 to 9, 1985. This injunction was issued in pursuance of an application filed by the plaintiff-respondent for the grant of a temporary injunction in the terms mentioned above during the pendency of a suit filed by it against the appellant and the respondent no. 2, a pro-forma defendant in the suit. 2. The application was contested by the appellant and, on a consideration of the papers filed by the parties, the court below granted the aforesaid injunction. The suit as well as the application for temporary injunction were filed on these assertions. The plaintiff is an association known as All India Handloom and Handicraft Trade Fair Committee registered under the Societies Registration Act. The aims and objects of the plaintiff are to promote and develop the export of handloom and handicraft products as also to compete in international market with the other countries and to celebrate the international year of handloom and handicrafts as announced by the Government of India. The members of the plaintiff's association were instrumental in organising the first and second All India Carpet Trade Fairs held at Hotel Taj Ganges, Varanasi in the years 1982 and 1984. At the second fair it was decided to hold similar trade fairs from February 6 to 9 every year at the aforesaid hotel. With a view to broadening the scope of the previous fairs and to hold a better handloom and handicraft exhibition this year, the plaintiff committee decided to organise a handloom and handicraft fair between February 6 to 9, 1985 at the aforesaid hotel. The defendants are members of the plaintiff-association and one of the conditions laid down in the Articles of Association of the plaintiff-committee is that no member shall carry on an identical business or organise a fair in competition with the fairs and business organised by the plaintiff association. The defendants are members of the plaintiff-association and one of the conditions laid down in the Articles of Association of the plaintiff-committee is that no member shall carry on an identical business or organise a fair in competition with the fairs and business organised by the plaintiff association. Despite this, the defendants having come to know the names of foreign buyers and other secrets of the trade or business being carried on by the plaintiff association are dishonestly organising the All India Carpet Trade Fair on the same dates, namely, February 6 to 9, 1985 by setting up a parallel body and have published in various mailers and advertisements that in affiliation with the All India Carpet Manufactures Association the All India Carpet Trade Fair is being organised at Hotel do Paris, Varanasi during the aforesaid dates thereby creating confusion in the minds of foreign buyers. This will cause irreparable loss to the reputation and business of the plaintiff. The plaintiff asked the defendants not to hold such fairs on the aforesaid dates but to no avail. On the aforesaid assertions the plaintiff claimed the following relief in the suit: "that the defendants be restrained by a decree of permanent injunction from holding All India Carpet Trade Fair at Hotel de Paris, Varanasi, during the period February 6 to 9, 1985 and in succeeding years." The suit was filed on December 22, 1984. On these very assertions an application was filed for temporary injunction. 3. The application was contested by the defendant-appellant on the ground that the defendant is not a member of the plaintiff association. The earlier trade fairs were not organised by the plaintiff association which was registered only on September 13, 1984, whereas the All India Carpet Trade Fairs Committee of which the defendant was member was constituted on July 10, 1984 and registered in December, 1984. The defendant was never enrolled as a member of the plaintiff association and there was hence no question of his being bound by the Articles of Association of the plaintiff not to hold the forthcoming Carpet Trade Fair at the Hotel de Paris. As a registered body affiliated to the All India Carpet Manufacturers Association, the All India Carpet Trade Fair Committee was legally free to hold the carpet trade fair on the dates mentioned above and at Hotel de Paris. As a registered body affiliated to the All India Carpet Manufacturers Association, the All India Carpet Trade Fair Committee was legally free to hold the carpet trade fair on the dates mentioned above and at Hotel de Paris. The plaintiff-respondent had neither a prima facie case nor is the balance of convenience in its favour. The All India Carpet Trade Fair Committee applied for registration on July 10, 1984 and immediately a press conference was held by the members of this Committee on July 20, 1984 at which it was announced that the said Carpet Trade Fair Committee would hold its fair at. Hotel de Paris between February 6 to 9, 1985 and in that connection it has already given wide publicity in various newspapers and journals including international magazines inviting foreign buyers at the fairs. The foreign buyers have also given their consent to participate in the said Trade Fair being organised at Hotel de Paris. The plaintiff has filed this suit only to blackmail the defendants committee and with malafide intention so as to create confusion in the carpet market. 4. For the appellant it was vehemently contended that the appellant not being a member of the plaintiff association there is no question of his being bound by the Articles of Association of the plaintiff not to hold a Carpet Trade Fair separately at Hotel de Paris. It was urged that the All India Carpet Trade Fair Committee is a registered body and it is not obliged under any contract or statute not to hold a Carpet Trade Fair at Hotel de Paris during the dates mentioned above. It is further urged that the informal committee that was constituted by the management of Hotel Taj Ganges Varanasi which organised the previous fair in 1984 having been admittedly dissolved and as that informal committee has no juristic link or connection with the plaintiff association, the defendant could not be validly restrained from holding the fair as he is not a member of the plaintiff. And this would be so even if he was, in some way, connected with the mere organisation of similar fair held in the past years. It was also contended that the balance of convenience is also in favour of the All India Carpet Trade Fair Committee which had already invested huge amounts towards the preparations for holding the forthcoming Carpet Trade Fair. It was also contended that the balance of convenience is also in favour of the All India Carpet Trade Fair Committee which had already invested huge amounts towards the preparations for holding the forthcoming Carpet Trade Fair. Learned counsel vehemently argued that as the suit is based on an ex facie false allegation that the defendant is a member of the plaintiff association and, therefore, barred from holding the fair elsewhere, the injunction ought to be refused on this very ground. 5. Learned counsel for the plaintiff respondent, on the other hand, urged that the defendant was certainly connected with the organisation of the trade fairs in the past held at the same venue under the auspicies of the management of Hotel Taj Ganges, Varanasi, and the new association namely, the All India Handloom and Handicraft Trade Fair Committee is nothing but a continuation of the previous body organising similar fairs in the past and hence even if technically the defendant is not a member of the plaintiff association he is bound not to hold a parallel fair. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I find that the order passed by the court below is unsustainable in law. The submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant have considerable merit and have to be accepted. The first question which falls for consideration is whether the plaintiff-respondent has a prima facie case and for that it is necessary to examine the precise legal right on the basis of which the plaintiff-respondent has claimed the injunction. 7. The only legal right set up in the plaint that as a member of the plaintiff association the defendant-appellant is prohibited from holding a parallel fair. In the Articles of Association of the plaintiff society I find that there is a clause which renders the membership of a member of the association liable termination if he is found to have joined o set up any parallel organisation detrimental to the interests of the association. If, there fore, the defendant-appellant is found to be a member of the plaintiff association it coil he urged with some justification that the defendant cannot associate himself in the organisation of a parallel trade fair. If, there fore, the defendant-appellant is found to be a member of the plaintiff association it coil he urged with some justification that the defendant cannot associate himself in the organisation of a parallel trade fair. However, I repeatedly asked the learned counsel for plaintiff-respondent to show me any sin document which might indicate that the defendant appellant is or ever was a member r the plaintiff association but he was unable point out any such document. He, however sought. to get over this difficulty by submitting that the All India Handloom and Handicraft Trade Fair Committee is nothing but a continuation of the old committee which organize, the previous fairs. He, however, confessed that there was no written constitution or bye-laws governing the old committee set up by the Hotel Taj Ganges for organising the trade fair in 1984. He referred to a paper (annexure 2 to the counter affidavit) which lays down general regulations for the second All India Carpet Fair held in 1984. This mentions" "the All India Carpet Manufacturers Association in collaboration with the Hotel Taj Ganges Varanasi" as the organizers of that fair. Even in these regulations there is nothing to indicate that any person connected with the organisation of that fair was prohibited from holding a parallel fair in future years. Be that as it may, there is not the faintest hint in the plaint of the suit that the plaintiff association is nothing but the continuation of the previous committee which had organised the trade fair in 1984. The argument of the learned counsel for the plaintiff-respondent is thus founded on a plea which has no basis and cannot hence be accepted. On the question whether the defendant is a member of the plaintiff association, learned counsel for the appellant placed strong reliance on annexure to the affidavit in support of the stay application which is a letter dated September 21, 1984 written by Sri K.N. Karkaria, the convenor of the plaintiff-respondent committee in which it has been categorically stated that the old committee which had organised the previous trade fairs had been dissolved. That being so, it is apparent that the mere fact that the defendant appellant was associated in the organisation of the previous fairs cannot lead to the inference that he is also bound by the Articles of Association of the plaintiff of which, prima facie, he is not a member. That being so, it is clear that the plaintiff respondent has, prima facie, no legal right to have the defendant applicant injuncted from holding the fair at Hotel de Paris from February 6 to 9,1985 or on any other date for that matter. 8. On the question of balance of convenience also I do not agree with the court below that the losses which the plaintiff-respondent would suffer, is, in anyway, irreparable or greater than that which will be suffered by the defendant-appellant by the grant of the injunction. There is sufficient material on record which indicates that the defendant-appellant has also moved sufficiently ahead towards the organisation of the fair at Hotel de Paris on the dates mentioned above. Learned counsel for the appellant produced before me that copies of the advertisement issued not only in the national papers but also in foreign journals. There is also the affidavit of the defendant-appellant filed in the court below stating that the foreign buyers have already been contacted and they have given their consent to participate in the fair being organised by the defendant-appellant. It is indisputable that all this must have meant considerable financing which has not been demonstrated by the plaintiff-respondent to be less than that which alleged to have been spent by the plaintiff-respondent. 9. I am also not satisfied that the plaintiff-respondents who are not themselves traders or manufacturers of the carpets would suffer any irreparable loss any more than the defendant-appellant if the injunction is granted. Both are essentially concerned with the organisation of the trade fairs. In any case, the burden was on the plaintiff-respondent which he has failed to discharge. In the totality of the entire circumstances no case has been made out for the giant of ad interim injunction. In the premise, the appeal is allowed. The order passed by the court below is set aside and the application for injunction filed by the plaintiff-respondent is dismissed. The parties shall, however, bear their own costs.