JUDGMENT A.K. Shrivastava, J. 1. This appeal has been filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 by the Plaintiffs whose suit has been dismissed at the threshold by learned Trial Court. 2. A civil suit has been filed by the Plaintiffs that Plaintiff No. 1 Kamalkant Goyal got 100 shares of M/s Lupin Laboratories Limited, a company registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Companies Act') on 15-9-1995. Similarly, Plaintiff Nos. 2, 3 and 4 namely Sanjay Goyal, Smt. Kasturi Bai and Smt, Usha Goyal respectively also purchased 100 shares each of the said Company. On 28-1-1996, a bag containing all the share certificates of the Plaintiff along with transfer deeds were misplaced and lost and despite due efforts took by the Plaintiffs, they could not be searched. Hence, a suit has been filed by the Plaintiffs to declare that Defendant should not transfer the share certificates of Plaintiffs to any other person and also to issue duplicate share certificates. A decree of injunction has also been sought that Defendant should not transfer the share certificates of the Plaintiffs. 3. The learned Trial Court after considering the various provisions of the Companies Act came to hold that Civil Court is not having any jurisdiction and hence dismissed the suit. 4. In this manner, this first appeal has been filed by the Plaintiffs. 5. I have heard learned Counsel for the Plaintiffs/Appellants. Shri Rohit Mangal, Advocate has appeared on behalf of interveners namely Flora Securities and Girdhar Parashar. The contention of learned Counsel for the Appellants is that by taking aid of Section 111 of the Companies Act, the learned Trial Court dismissed the suit of the Plaintiffs but the said provision is not applicable in the present case because it relates to power to refuse registration and appeal against refusal and hence it has been put forth by learned Counsel that by misconstruing Section 111 of the Companies Act, the learned Trial Court has erred in dismissing the suit. 6. None has appeared on behalf of the Respondent though served. Shri Mangal has appeared for the interveners. 6. None has appeared on behalf of the Respondent though served. Shri Mangal has appeared for the interveners. Although Intervention Application I.A. No. 5393/96 has not been allowed but learned Counsel has invited my attention to the legal proposition and submitted that the civil suit as framed and filed by the Plaintiffs is not maintainable in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Shripal Jain v. Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd. 1995 Supp (4) SCC 590. 7. Having heard learned Counsel for the Plaintiffs/Appellants and also considering the plaint averments and the relief claimed in it and also after hearing learned Counsel appearing for the interveners, I am of the view that this appeal deserves to be dismissed. 8. Although initially I was going to remand the matter to the learned Trial Court to decide this point if any objection in this regard is submitted by the Defendant or any intervention application made before that Court because the suit has been dismissed at its threshold even without issuing summon to the Defendant, but looking to the dictum of the Supreme Court in the decision of Shripal Jain (supra), since it has been held in it that the subject matter of issuance of duplicate share certificates on account of loss of original ones, Civil Court is not a Competent Court but Registrar under the Companies Act should have held an enquiry in that regard under Section 84(4) read with Companies (Issue of Share Certificates) Rules, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 1960') and to pass necessary orders. Although the approach of learned Trial Court by applying Section 111 of the Companies Act was wrong but the suit has been rightly dismissed. Indeed, in the present case, Section 84(4) of the Companies Act and the Rules of 1960 are applicable which speaks about the certificate of shares. In the case of Shripal Jain (supra), also the share certificates were stolen. Eventually the Appellant of that case approached the Registrar for issuance of duplicate certificates, however, the Registrar directed the Appellant to have a direction in this respect from the Civil Court as a result of which a civil suit was filed, but, the Civil Court did not allow the relief and the revision which was filed before the High Court was also dismissed in limine. The Appellant of that case approached the Apex Court wherein the Apex Court specifically held that the Registrar of Company was in patent error in referring the Appellant to the Civil Court by further holding that Registrar should have himself held an enquiry in the matter under Section 84(4) of the Companies Act read with Rules of 1960 to take decision in the matter. The Supreme Court ultimately set aside the order of the High Court passed in revision as well as of the Civil Court and remanded the case back to the Registrar to decide the matter in accordance with law. 9. Indeed, in the present case also/looking to the plaint averments and the relief claimed by the Plaintiffs, which is akin to that of the case of Shripal Jain (supra), it is gathered that in the present case also the Plaintiffs' share certificates have been lost and therefore, it has been prayed that duplicate share certificates be issued to them and their lost share certificates may not be transferred to any other person. Thus, according to me, the Civil Court is not having any jurisdiction to try such type of suit. 10. Apart from what I have held hereinabove, it would be condign to go through the relief clause of the plaint again. Although suit for declaration has been filed, but indeed, the suit is for mandatory injunction to issue duplicate share certificates and a prohibitory injunction that lost share certificates should not be transferred to any other person. According to me, such type of injunction should be refused by the Court in view of Section 41(h) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, which speaks that injunction be refused when equally efficacious relief can certainly be obtained by any other usual mode of proceeding except in case of breach of trust. Since, the Plaintiffs are having an efficacious remedy to file necessary application before the Registrar of Company under Section 84 of the Companies Act, therefore, for this additional ground also, the relief claimed in the plaint cannot be granted to the Plaintiffs. 11. For the reasons stated hereinabove, this appeal fails and is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.