JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal Under Order 43 of Rule 1(R) of the Civil Procedure Code is directed against an order of pendente-lite injunction dated October 27, 1988 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Raisinghnagar restraining the appellants from recovering any amount from and auctioning their any property. 2. The material facts may be noticed in brief. The plaintiffs who are respondents before me in this appeal are the partners of M/s. Bhimsen and party who were granted licence on exclusive privilege basis for the retail sale of I.M.F.L. and Country Liquor for Suratgarh, Padampur, Raisinghnagar group of shops on account of the licences failing to carry out obligations under the of licence, the licence was cancelled on 13.8.1988 by the defendant-appellant District Excise Officer, Sri Ganganagar. At the time of the cancellation of licence, excise revenue amounting to Rs. 67,64,490.76 P. was found outstanding against the licencees. The District Excise Officer initiated the recovery proceedings against the licences including the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs thereupon instituted a suit for perpetual injunction against the appellants in the court of the Additional District Judge, Raisinghnagar challenging the action of recovery initiated against them by the District Excise Officer. They also applied for pendente-lite injunction against the defendants. Meanwhile Bhimsen one of the licencees also challenged the action of the appellants in recovering the outstanding amount from him way of a writ petition at the Jaipur Bench of the High Court. The Division Bench of the High Court at Jaipur passed an order on 7.10.1988 that the action of the property of Bhimsen which was taken under attachment by the appellants would not be auotioned if Bhimsen or any other licencees makes the payment of a sum of Rs. 24,70,000/- to the appellants. Bhimsen went in special appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court passed an order on 14.10.1988 that the auction of the property of Bhimsen will not be held provided be furnishes bank guarantee in the amount of Rs. 28 Lakhs. It was further ordered that in the event of default, it will be open to the parties (defendants) to proceed with the auction. 3. The learned Additional District Judge issued notice of the plaintiffs application relating to pendente lite injunction. The application was contested tooth and nail by the defendants. 28 Lakhs. It was further ordered that in the event of default, it will be open to the parties (defendants) to proceed with the auction. 3. The learned Additional District Judge issued notice of the plaintiffs application relating to pendente lite injunction. The application was contested tooth and nail by the defendants. The learned Judge thereafter heard the parties and by his impugned order dated 27.10.1988 granted the pendente-lite injunction as mentioned at the very outset. The reasons which prevailed over the Additional District Judge are that one of the partners had already furnished the bank guarantee of Rs. 28 lakhs. As such nothing thereafter remains due against any of the partners. Some of the partners had filed writ petitions at the principal seat of the High Court at Jodhpur and an order to maintain status-quo was passed therein. The learned Additional District Judge held that in view of these circumstances, it was a fit case where pendente-lite injunction should be issued. Aggrieved against the impugned order dated 27.10.1988, the defendants who are the State of Rajasthan and the District Excise Officer have come up in appeal. 4. I have heard Mr. R.C. Maheshwari-learned Counsel for the defendants-appellants and Mr. M.G. Bhandari and Mr. N.M. Lodha-learned Counsel for the plaintiffs-respondents. I have also gone through the case file carefully. 5. In assailing the impugned order, the first contention raised by Mr. Maheshwari is that what has been stayed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court is the auction of the properties of Bhimsen and not the recovery of the amount due against the licencees. The plaintiff are some of the licencees. As such the learned Additional District Judge was in clear error including that nothing stands prima facie due against the plaintiffs. It was on the other hand contended by Mr. Bhandari that it is yet to be decided as to what amount stands due against the licencees including the plaintiffs. He however could not dispute the position that what has been stated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court is the auction of the properties of one of the licencees vis. Bhimsen and not the recovery of the money. 6. The position, therefore, stands to this that the Hon'ble Supreme Court had only stayed the auction of the properties of Bhimsen and not the recovery of the amount outstanding against the licencees including Bhimsen and the plaintiffs. Bhimsen and not the recovery of the money. 6. The position, therefore, stands to this that the Hon'ble Supreme Court had only stayed the auction of the properties of Bhimsen and not the recovery of the amount outstanding against the licencees including Bhimsen and the plaintiffs. It was in order to stay the auction of the properties of Bhimsen that an order of bank guarantee was passed by their Lordships of the Supreme Court. The licencees are jointly and severally liable for the payment of the licence money to the appellants. The settled position in law is that when the liabilities are joint and several, the liability can be enforced jointly as well as individually against all the concerned persons. Since the liability in the instant case is joint and several and the Hon'ble Supreme Court had not stayed the recovery of the licence money, the plaintiffs should be taken to be free to recover the amount from all the licencees or any of them. The learned Additional District Judge when he said " vizkFkhZx.k ( izfroknhx.k ) dh lEiw.kZ jkf'k HkjikbZ tfj;s cSad tekur gksuk izFke n`"Vr;k fjdkMZ ij vk pqdk gS] vr% vc mudh vkSj dksbZ cdk;k ugha gksus ds dkj.k " was clearly in error that no amount stands prima facie due against the licencees. It should, therefore, be taken that the defendants are at liberty to recover the outstanding amount from all the licencees or any of them by any means except by auctioning the properties of Bhimsen taken under attachment. 7. It was next contended that the view taken by the court below that as one of the licencees vis. Bhimsen had furnished the bank guarantee of Rs. 28 lakhs, it should be taken for the benefit of all the licencees is clearly erroneous. It was Bhimseen who wanted to protect his property from auction and, therefore, the bank guarantee furnished by him should be taken only for his benefit and it enures no benefit or protection to the other licencees. The contention of Mr. Bhandari on the other hand is that since the liability of the partners is joint and several, the bank guarantee furnished by Bhimsen enures to the benefit of all the licencees. In my opinion, the submission made by Mr. Bhandari has no substance. Bhimsen furnished the bank guarantee to protect his properties from auction. The contention of Mr. Bhandari on the other hand is that since the liability of the partners is joint and several, the bank guarantee furnished by Bhimsen enures to the benefit of all the licencees. In my opinion, the submission made by Mr. Bhandari has no substance. Bhimsen furnished the bank guarantee to protect his properties from auction. This bank guarantee does not operate as a bar for the defendants from recovering the outstanding amount from the licencees. The plaintiffs can reap no benefit from the bank guarantee furnished by Bhimsen because the bank guarantee only protects the property from auction. It does not stay the recovery of the outstanding amount. 8. Coming to the next contention, it was argued by Mr. Maheshwari that the stay order granted in a writ petition by some of the licencees on 7.10.1988 (or 5.10.88) by a Division Bench of this Court at Jodhpur was vacated on 12.4.1989. As such also the impugned order of the court below is not maintainable. Mr. Bhandari does not controvert the position that the stay granted on 7.10.1988 for maintaining status-quo etc. was vacated on 12.4.1989. The effect of vacating the stay order is that the amount outstanding against the licencees can be recovered. As such also the impugned order granting pendente-lite injunction is bad and unsustainable. 9. I am fully conscious that the order of granting temporary injunction should not be lightly interfered with. The interference should be made only when it is inevitable. One of the essential conditions for granting the temporary injunction is that the party applying for it should have a prima facie case in his favour. It does not appear that no amount stands due against the licencees including the plaintiffs. As such it cannot be said that any prima facie case is there in favour of the plaintiffs. The grounds and reasons which prevailed over the Additional District Judge in granting the injunction are fallacious without any existence for the reasons discussed above. No other contention was raised. 10. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated October 27, 1988 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Raisinghnagar is hereby set aside, and the application of the plaintiffs for temporary injunction shall stand dismissed. No order as to costs. Appeal allowed. *******