JUDGMENT Mr. L.N. Mittal, J.(Oral):- This is revision petition by plaintiff no.5 only after the plaintiffs i.e. petitioner and proforma respondents no.4 to 7 failed in both the courts below to secure temporary injunction. 2. Plaintiffs as partners of firm M/s Asian Tubes took loan from defendant-respondent no.1 – Haryana Financial Corporation (HFC). Ram Phal, Murti Devi, Ishwar Singh, Bimla Devi and Jai Parkash (hereinafter referred to as ‘new partners’ for convenience sake) approached the plaintiffs for purchase of their aforesaid factory. The plaintiffs have alleged that HFC agreed to allow transfer of management of factory to the new partners on execution of deed of additional security dated 21.12.1994. At that time, outstanding loan amounts were Rs.1,13,100/- and Rs.4,31,000/-. Fresh guarantee bond dated 06.02.1995 was also taken from petitioner Suresh Kumar and from Ram Phal Singh, Murti Devi and Jai Parkash out of the new partners. The plaintiffs thereafter allegedly left the firm and new partners are running the firm after retirement of the plaintiffs. However, defendant no.1 HFC initiated action under Section 29 of the State Financial Corporations Act on 15.06.1996 against the firm and took possession of the factory including mortgaged property and hypothecated assets. The same were sold for recovery of outstanding amounts. Security given by new partners was also sold by defendant no.1 HFC. The plaintiffs alleged that now defendant no.3 – Assistant Collector approached the plaintiffs for recovery of Rs.2,63,77,889/- as amount outstanding against the firm. The plaintiffs challenged recovery of the said amount from them by filing injunction suit. The plaintiffs sought temporary injunction restraining the defendants from arresting the plaintiffs for recovery of the aforesaid amount till decision of the suit. 3. Defendants inter alia pleaded that plaintiffs had moved application on 20.02.1995 for transfer of the liability. The same was accepted by the defendants with the condition that the plaintiffs should submit balance sheet and should clear the defaulting amount. They never made regular payment of due amount or interest. Thus, no permission was granted to transfer the liability or to sell the factory to the new partners. The plaintiffs signed the mortgage deed in respect of the loan amount and they are liable to pay the same. 4. Learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jind vide impugned order dated 22.12.2009 (Annexure P-1) dismissed the plaintiffs’ application for temporary injunction. Thus, no permission was granted to transfer the liability or to sell the factory to the new partners. The plaintiffs signed the mortgage deed in respect of the loan amount and they are liable to pay the same. 4. Learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jind vide impugned order dated 22.12.2009 (Annexure P-1) dismissed the plaintiffs’ application for temporary injunction. Appeal preferred by the plaintiffs against the said order has been dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Jind vide impugned judgment dated 08.03.2010 (Annexure P-2). Feeling aggrieved, only plaintiff no.5 has filed the instant revision petition. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that all the plaintiffs retired from the partnership firm in the year 1994-95 after seeking permission from HFC – defendant no.1 and therefore, plaintiffs are no longer liable to pay the amount due from the firm. 7. I have carefully considered the aforesaid contention, but find no merit therein. The plaintiffs have failed to depict that any unconditional permission was granted by the HFC to the plaintiffs to transfer the unit and liability to the new partners. On the other hand, defendants’ case is that the permission to transfer the unit was conditional, but plaintiffs did not satisfy the condition as they did not clear the outstanding defaulting amount. Consequently, the plaintiffs were not absolved of their liability. 8. In addition to the aforesaid, even according to the plaintiffs’ own version, fresh guarantee bond dated 06.02.1995 was obtained by HFC from petitioner Suresh Kumar and from three of the five new partners. In this view of the matter also, the petitioner cannot claim exemption from recovery of the outstanding amount from him because he is also liable in view of guarantee bond dated 06.02.1995. 9. Learned lower appellate court has observed that letter dated 22.09.2003 depicted that the plaintiffs intended to compromise the matter with HFC under policy of 2003 for settlement of chronic non-performing assets and pursuant to compromise, some part-payments were made by the plaintiffs as depicted by accounts statement, which also depicted that a sum of Rs.3,20,433/-had even been paid on 04.04.2008. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that plaintiffs never came in picture after new partners took over the firm in 1994-95. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that plaintiffs never came in picture after new partners took over the firm in 1994-95. However, this oral statement made by the counsel for the petitioner is not sufficient to rebut the observation made by lower appellate court on the basis of documents on record. Petitioner has not placed on record any document to controvert the aforesaid observation of the lower appellate court. In view of the said observation also, the plaintiffs have no case for grant of temporary injunction. 11. In addition to the aforesaid, recovery certificate had already been issued for recovery of the suit amount against the plaintiffs under the Haryana Public Money (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1979. It appears that pursuant to said recovery certificate, defendant no. 3 – Assistant Collector is recovering the money and that is why, defendant no.3 appears to have been impleaded as party to the suit. However, plaintiffs in the suit have not challenged the aforesaid recovery certificate. For this added reason as well, temporary injunction asked for by the plaintiffs cannot be granted. Thus, examined from any angle, it is manifest that the plaintiffs have miserably failed to make out a case for grant of temporary injunction. Both the courts below have taken correct view of the matter. Judgment of the lower appellate court is based on very sound reasons. There is no illegality in the orders of the courts below warranting interference in exercise of revisional power. The revision petition is thus bereft of any merit and is accordingly dismissed in limine. However, nothing observed hereinbefore shall be construed as expression of opinion on the merits of the suit. --------------