JUDGMENT : 1. We have heard learned counsels appearing for the parties. 2. All these Civil Miscellaneous Appeals arise out of an interim injunction order dated 10.02.2011, passed by the trial court in Civil Misc. Case No.36/2010, by which an interim injunction was granted, to the effect that plaintiffs-defendants No.1 to 31 and defendants No.36 to 43, will not sell, transfer, nor will create any substantial charge over the properties, mentioned in Schedule "Ka" to "Cha”. The trial court further directed that both the parties will, in respect of their Companies, which are controlled by them, or of which they are partners, and the Firms, which are mentioned in Schedule "?" to "?”, will submit their six monthly and yearly accounts, duly audited. The rest of the prayers were rejected. 3. Brief facts, as stated in the plaint, giving rise to the suit, and the written statement, are stated in the judgment of learned Single Judge dated 14.03.2012, as follows:- “2. The short facts giving rise to the present appeals are that the respondent nos. 1 to 5 (original plaintiffs) have filed the suit before the lower court seeking various reliefs against the present appellants and other respondents (original-defendants).The reliefs claimed in the suit inter alia are for the decree against the defendants nos. 1 to 31 for the partition of the properties mentioned in para 17 read with schedules 'KA' to 'CHHA' by metes and bounds, and for the declaration of 1/2 share of the plaintiffs in the said properties. The plaintiffs have also prayed for mandatory injunction directing the defendants Nos. 1 to 31 to act upon the family settlement dated 20.12.07 and to hand-over the possession of the properties to the plaintiffs as per the said settlement, as also sought permanent injunction restraining the defendant nos. 1 to 31 from transferring or selling or creating any interest in the properties mentioned in the said schedules 'KA' to 'CHHA', which were Joint Family Properties. The plaintiffs have also sought for the relief against the said defendants for rendition of accounts in respect of the said properties. The respondent Nos. 1 to 5 (the plaintiffs) had also filed an application being Civil Misc. Application No. 36/2010, seeking temporary injunction during the pendency of the suit. The said application was resisted by the concerned defendants by filing their respective written statements/replies. The respondent Nos. 1 to 5 (the plaintiffs) had also filed an application being Civil Misc. Application No. 36/2010, seeking temporary injunction during the pendency of the suit. The said application was resisted by the concerned defendants by filing their respective written statements/replies. The lower court after hearing the learned counsels for the parties and considering the documents on record, partly allowed the said application by the impugned order dated 10.2.2011, whereby the lower court has restrained the defendant nos. 1 to 31 and 36 to 43 from selling, transferring or creating any substantive charge over the immovable properties mentioned in the schedules 'KA' to 'CHHA', and further directing all the parties to produce periodically the audited or unaudited accounts of the companies/partnership firms, managed and controlled by the respective parties. Being aggrieved by the said order, the respective appellants have filed the present appeals. 3. Assailing the impugned order passed by the lower court, the learned counsel Mr. N.M. Sharma for the appellants M/S Raghuvar India Ltd. (original defendant no. 14), vehemently submitted that the suit of the plaintiffs in the present form is not maintainable in the eye of law, in as much as the suit has been filed by Shri Babu Lal s/o Ram Niwas along with Saurabh Agrotech Pvt. Ltd. , which is a company incorporated under the Companies Act and also along with two partnership firms registered under the Partnership Act and by the HUF of Babu Lal, seeking partition of the properties mentioned in the Schedules annexed to the plaint and that too against the set of companies, which have been shown as the assets of the H.U.F. He also submitted that the said plaintiff Babu Lal, though seeking partition of the Joint Family Properties has not impleaded his own sons and other coparceners as parties to the suit and has not included the properties owned and managed by the plaintiffs in the schedules annexed to the plaint. In short, according to Mr. Sharma, when the suit itself is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and for mis-joinder of the parties and of causes of action, and when the suit is not tenable in the eye of law, the lower court should not have granted any temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiffs. Mr. In short, according to Mr. Sharma, when the suit itself is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and for mis-joinder of the parties and of causes of action, and when the suit is not tenable in the eye of law, the lower court should not have granted any temporary injunction in favour of the plaintiffs. Mr. Sharma further submitted that the order passed by the lower court is thoroughly misconceived and if allowed to stand, would cause not only hardship to the appellant companies but also would practically affect the day to day businesses of the said companies. The learned senior counsel Mr. A.K. Sharma appearing for M/S Vijay Solvex Ltd.(original defendant no. 24), in support of the submissions made by learned counsel Mr. N.M. Sharma, submitted that the lower court had not taken into consideration the contentions raised by the concerned defendant in its reply with regard to the partition of Joint Family Properties, which had already taken place in the year 1959, and which was also subsequently ratified by the plaintiff Babu Lal himself on his becoming major. According to learned counsel Mr. Sharma, the appellant company is not only a separate legal entity but also a listed company and, therefore, there was no question of partition of the said company as sought for by the plaintiffs in the suit. Mr. Sharma also referring to the averments made in the plaint, more particularly in para 12, submitted that even according to the plaintiffs there was no family settlement, with regard to M/s Vijay Solvex or M/S Raghuvar India Ltd., and that the said companies have been included only in the Schedule 'GHA' as if they are the assets of the Joint Family Properties. He also submitted that the lower court had failed to appreciate that the plaintiffs had not been able to show even prima facie that the corpus of the defendant companies was provided by the coparceners of the joint family.” 4. Learned Single Judge partly allowed the Misc.Appeals, set aside the injunction granted against the defendants, from transferring, selling, or alienating the properties, or creating charge over the immovable properties. So far as the production of audited and unaudited accounts is concerned, the order of the trial court was confirmed and the injunction was modified accordingly. 5. Civil Appeal No.7174 of 2014 (Babu Lal & Ors. Vs. So far as the production of audited and unaudited accounts is concerned, the order of the trial court was confirmed and the injunction was modified accordingly. 5. Civil Appeal No.7174 of 2014 (Babu Lal & Ors. Vs. M/s. Vijay Solvex Ltd. & Ors.,) and other Civil Appeals No.7175 of 2014, 7195 to 7201 of 2014 and 7177 of 2014 were filed in Supreme Court against the orders passed by learned Single Judge on 14.3.2012. Initially, the matter was referred to the Mediation of Hon'ble Mr. Justice B.N. Agarwal, a former Judge of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. He could not conclude the proceedings, and thus, the matter was decided by the Supreme Court, and was remitted to this Court for fresh disposal, after hearing the parties. Paragraphs 7 to 9 of the judgment of the Supreme Court are quoted as below:- “7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. In the present case, the parties have raised similar pleas which were taken before the High Court. However, we are of the opinion that while dealing with a matter relating to vacation of order of temporary injunction, it was not open for the High Court to give a finding on the main issue relating to maintainability of the suit and the family settlement reached between the parties. 8. In view of the finding aforesaid, we are inclined to interfere with the judgment and order dated 14th March, 2012 passed by the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Bench at Jaipur in S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.2218 of 2011 etc. We, accordingly, set aside the impugned judgment and remit back the matter to the High Court for its fresh disposal after hearing the parties. 9. The appeal stand disposed of with aforesaid observations.” 6. I have heard the parties at length. 7. It is alleged that the Data Group Family, in its meeting held on 20.12.2007, took decision, which is the basis of the suit. The short Memorandum of Settlement, arrived at between the parties, is quoted as below:- “DATED 20th Dec.2007 In the Data Group Family meeting today following decisions were taken. Decision 1 : Data Infoyes will go to BLD Group and Sh. Vijay Data. Share ratio will go to 55% for BLD Group and 45% of Sh. Vijay Data Management will remain with BLD Group & Sh. Decision 1 : Data Infoyes will go to BLD Group and Sh. Vijay Data. Share ratio will go to 55% for BLD Group and 45% of Sh. Vijay Data Management will remain with BLD Group & Sh. Vijay Data can only advise on working and growth of the company. Valuation has been fixed at Rs. Eight Crore which includes Building and Plant and machinery including any I.P. right / Brand, value as on 31.03.2007. Any addition and deletion after thereafter will be dealt with separately. Ajay Data S/o Sh. B.L. Data will look after day to day operations of the company and growth of the company independently, for this company will pay him Rupees 50 lacs per annum plus expenses (4.16 Lacs per Month) in his individual capacity. Decision 2 : Jaipur Glass will go to Sh NLD Group. Valuation has been fixed at Rs. Five Crore which includes Building and Plant and machinery including any I.P. Right/Brand Value is as on 31.03.2007. Any addition and deletion after thereafter will be dealt with separately. Above value does not include land (approx. 25000 sq. yard) at Tonk Road and NLD Group owns 75% and BLD Groups own 25% of this land. Till the plant gets shifted to another location, the land will not sit be sold. For NLD Group For BLD Groups Vijay Data Babulal Data” 8. It is alleged that the business started by late Shri Pyare Lal Ji, as a partnership business in the year 1940 had flourished, and has diversified in several fields. A large number of proprietorship and partnership firms and companies both Private Limited and Public Limited including Vijay Solvex Ltd. and Raghuvar (India) Ltd., were established, from the nucleus of the business. There are as many as 43 defendants, which include 31 business entities, including one company registered in Sri Lanka and one in United Kingdom. 9. A large number of proprietorship and partnership firms and companies both Private Limited and Public Limited including Vijay Solvex Ltd. and Raghuvar (India) Ltd., were established, from the nucleus of the business. There are as many as 43 defendants, which include 31 business entities, including one company registered in Sri Lanka and one in United Kingdom. 9. Civil Misc.Case No.36/2010 was filed in the Court of Additional District Judge No.3, Jaipur Metropolitan, for the following reliefs:- ^^¼d½ okn oknhx.k fo:) izfroknhx.k la[;k 1 rk 31 rdklesa dk fMØh tkdj okn i= dh en la[;k 17 esa f’kM~;wy&d yxk;r f’kM~;wy&N esa of.kZr lEifŸk;ksa dks la;qDr ifjokj }kjk l`ftr laifŸk ekuh tkdj mDr lEifŸk;ksa dk tfj;s ehV~l ,M+ ckmUM+~Lk caVokjk djk;k tkdj oknh dk mijksDr lEifŸk;ksa es vk/kk fgLlk ?kksf”kr fd;k tkdj mijksDr lEifŸk oknh dks fnykbZ tkosa o mldk okLrfod dCtk oknh dks fnyk;k tkosA ¼[k½ okn oknhx.k fo:) izfroknhx.k ckcr vkKkRed fu”ks/kkKk fMØh fd;k tkdj okn i= dh en la[;k 13 o 14 esa of.kZr lEifŸk;ksa dks ikfjokfjd le>kSrs ds eqrkfcd ,DV viksu djk;k tkdj oknhx.k ds fgLls essa tks laifŸk vkbZ gS] mudks oknh dks fnyk;k tkos rFkk izfroknhx.k la[;k 1 rk 31 dks vknsf’kr fd;k tkosa fd os oknhx.k ds gd esa ikfjokfjd le>kSrs ds eqrkfcd eqQhn nLrkost rgjhj o rdehy djsa rFkk tgk¡&rgk¡ izfroknhx.kksa ds gLrk{kjksa dh vko’;drk gks ogka&ogka mu nLrksostksa ij gLrk{kj dj mu lEifŸk;ksa dks oknh ds gd+ esa gLrkarfjr djsA fodYi esa ekuuh; U;k;ky; bl urhts ij igqWprh gS fd vkKkRed fu”k/kkKk ikfjr fd;k tkuk laHko ugh gS rks mijksDr lEifŸk;ksa dks la;qDr ifjokj }kjk l`ftr dh xbZ laifŸk ekurs gq, mldk Hkh tfj;s ehV~l ,oa ckmUM+~l rdklek djk;k tkdj oknh dks mldk fgLlk fnyk;k tkosa o okLrfod dCt+k lqiqnZ fd;k tkosA ¼Xk½ okn oknhx.k fo:) izfroknhx.k ckcr vkKkRed fu”ks/kkKk fMØh fd;k tkdj ikfjokfjd le>kSrk fnukad 20-12-2007 dks gq;s QSlys ds vuqlkj t;iqj fxykl QSDVªh] Vksad jksM] t;iqj fLFkr Hkwfe esa ls 25 izfr’kr Hkwfe fpfUgr dj o j?kqoj bafM+;k nqxkZiqjk t;iqj esa ls Hkh oknh ds fgLls dh Hkwfe dks fpfUgr dj oknh dks fnykbZ tkos rFkk oknh ds gd+ esa VªklaQj ds fy, t:jh dkuwuh nLrkost fu”ikfnr djok;s tkosA ¼?k½ okn oknhx.k fo:) izfroknhx.k la[;k 1 rk 31 ckcr fglkc Qgeh dh fMØh dh tkdj tks laifŸk;ks ikfjokfjd le>kSrs ds eqrkfcd oknhx.k ,oa izfroknhx.k la[;k 1 rk 31 ds gd+ esa gLrkarfjr gqbZ gS muds MsVLkZ o ØsfM+VlZ dk iw.kZ fooj.k izfroknh la[;k 1 rk 31 eqgS;k djok,a o oknh ds gd dk tks :i;k fudyrk gS og oknhx.k dks fnyok;k tkosa rFkk fnukad 1-04-2007 ds ckn oknh la[;k 1 ds gd+ esa vkbZ lEifŸk;ksa ij ;fn dksbZ fofu;ksx fd;k x;k gS rks mldk Hkh fglkc djok;k tkdj ml fofu;ksx esa ls oknh ds fgLls ds vuqikr dh jkf’k oknhx.k dks fnykbZ tkosA ¼M+½ okn oknh fo:) izfroknhx.k ckcr LFkkbZ fu”ks/kkKk fMØh fd;k tkdj izfroknhx.k dks bl vk’k; dh LFkkbZ fu”ks/kkKk ls ikacn fd;k tkos fd os vfoHkkftr laifŸk] ftudk fooj.k okn i= dh en la[;k 17 esa of.kZr f’kM~;wy&d ls N esa fn;k x;k gS] dk dksbZ Hkkx o va’k fdlh Hkh izdkj ls c;] c[‘kh’k] jgu] fcy&dCt uk djsa] uk gh mu lEifŸk;ksa es o muds fjdkM+Z esa o ljdkjh o v)Zljdkjh dk;kZy;ksa esa fdlh Hkh izdkj dk la’kks/ku uk djs] uk gh dksbZ fjdkMZ ds lkFk NsM+NkM+ djs] uk gh lEifŸk;ksa ds Lo:i esa fdlh izdkj dk ifjoRkZu djsa o lEifŸk;ksa ds Lo:i o fjdkMZ dh fLFkfr izfroknhx.k ;Fkkor cuk;s j[ksA lkFk gh izfroknhx.k dks bl vk’k; dks fu”ks/kkKk ls Hkh ikacn Qjek;k tkosa fd os la;qDr ifjokj dh daifu;ks ds ‘ks;j dSfiVy dks fjM~~;wl u djs] u gh ,ugkUl djs] u gh rdlek ryc lEifŸk;ksa esa oknh dks vku&tku es] mi;ksx&miHkksx djus esa fdlh izdkj dh ck/kk mRiUu uk djs vkSj uk gh O;kikj ds Ms&VwMs vQs;lZ esa fdlh izdkj dh enk[kyr iSnk uk djs] uk gh ‘ks;lZ vU; fdlh O;fDr] laLFkk] dEiuh bR;kfn dks VªkalQj djsa] uk gh vfoHkkftr laEifŸk;ksa o mudh assets dks vU;= izdkj ls LFkkukUrfjr djsa] lkFk gh ikfjokfjd le>kSrs ds eqrkfcd tks lEifr;ka oknh ds fgLls esa vk xbZ o mudk iw.kZ LokfeRo oknh dks izkIr gks x;k gS] mu lEifŸk;ksa ds mi;ksx&miHkksx djus o muds VªsM+ ekdZ ds mi;ksx&miHkksx esa izfroknhx.k ck/kk mRiUu ugh djsa] uk gh fdlh izdkj dh enk[kyr iSnk uk djsA lkFk gh izfroknh la[;k 32 dks bl vk’k; dh fu”ks/kkKk ls ikacn Qjek;k tkos fd oks fooknxzLr lEifŸk;ksa ds laca/k esa fdlh izdkj ds dksbZ nLrkost jftLVMZ uk djsA izfroknh la[;k 33 o 34 dks bl vk’k; dh fu”ks/kkKk ls ikacn Qjek;k tkos fd tks fjdkMZ fooknxzLRk dEifu;ks dk muds ikl gS] ml fjdkWMZ esa os fdlh rjg dh dksbZ rCnhyh uk djs] uk gh eSustesUV cnysA lkFk gh izfroknh la[;k 35 dks ikacn Qjek;k tkos fd oks fooknxzLr lEifŸk dks jgu uk j[ksa vkSj tks fooknxzLr lEifŸk;ksa esa tks jgu gS] mUgsa izfroknhx.k la[;k 1 rk 9 ls jkf’k ysdj jgu eqDr djsA ¼p½ [kpkZ eqdnek oknhx.k dks izfroknhx.k ls fnyk;k tkosA ¼N½ vU; vuqrks”k tks ekuuh; U;k;ky; mfpr le>s oknhx.k ds gds es vrk Qjek;k tkosA^^ 10. An application for interim injunction was filed, seeking injunction, to the effect that the defendants may not transfer or alienate the properties of the business, in any manner whatsoever, and may not create charge over the properties and for filing statement of six monthly and yearly accounts, duly audited, of the defendant- Companies. 11. We find substance in the arguments of learned counsel appearing for the appellants, that though the alleged Family Settlement dated 20.12.2007 may be cause of action to file the suit, and that, the defendants were allegedly not complying with the conditions of the family settlement, which was partly acted upon, there was absolutely no pleadings and material, which may have demonstrated the prima facie case for grant of injunction, restraining the defendants from transferring, or alienating the properties, and creating any charge over the properties of the Companies and its business assets. In fact, categorical findings were recorded by the trial court, as follows:- gLrxr izdj.k esa tks laifŸk;ksa dh lwph U;k;ky; ds le{k izLrqr dh xbZ gS os dkQh ek=k esa gSA vc U;k;ky; dks ;g ns[kuk gS fd mijksDr ds ifjis{; esa ,slk D;k vkns’k ikfjr fd;k tk ldrk gS] ftlls mijksDr laifŸk;ks dh lqj{kk bu ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa fd tk lds] rkfd nksuksa gh i{kks ds fof/kd vf/kdkjksa ij dksbZ foijhr izHkko ugh iMs+ vkSj ugh nksuksa i{kks dk O;kikj fdlh izdkj ls izHkkfor gks D;ksafd foHkktu ds ekeys esa esjh jk; esa U;k;ky; dk eq[; mÌs’; laifŸk;ks dks fIkztoZ djuk gS] u fd mudks ,slh LVst ij ys tkus nsuk ftlls nksuks gh i{kks dks vius fof/kd vf/kdkjks ls oafpr jguk iM+sA rFkk nksuks gh i{k vius O;kikj dk lapkyu HkyhHkkafr ugh dj ik;sA ;gka ;g fy[kuk Hkh lehphu gksxk fd daifu;ksa] QeksZ esa dsoy ek= izkFkhZ ,oa vizkFkhZ.k dk gh fgr tqM+k ugh gksrk gS cfYd mlesa dk;Zjr O;fDr;ksa dk Hkh fgr tqM+k gksrk gSA vr% ,slh fLFkfr esa bl lc rF;ksa dks /;ku esa j[krs gq, gh U;k;ky; dk U;k;laxr vkns’k ikfjr djuk U;k;ksfpr jgsxkA izkFkhZx.k }kjk tks laifŸk;ks dk f’kM~;wy ^^d^^ ls ^^N^^ izLrqr fd;k x;k gS os ewyr% vpy laifŸk;ka] daifu;ksa] Hkkxhnkjh QeZ gS] ftuds ckjs esa nksuks gh i{kks ds }kjk viuh&viuh gksus dk dFku fd;k x;k gSA tSlk fd Åij dFku fd;k x;k gS fd ;g rF; rks lk{; vkus ds ckn gh LIk”V gks ik;sxk fd mDr laifŸk;k la;qDr fganq ifjokj dh laifŸk gS ;k ugh] muesa fdl i{kdkj dk fdruk fgLlk gSA vr% ,slh fLFkfr esa esjh jk; esa nksuksa i{kksa ds }kjk izLrqr fd;s x;s vfHkopuksa esa ,slk dksbZ iq[rk izek.k U;k;ky; ds le{k ugh gS fd dksbZ Hkh i{kdkj O;kikj dks gkfu igqapkus ds fy, laifŸk;ksa dks fdlh Hkh izdkj ls gLrkUrfjr dj jgk gks] ysfdu ;gka ;g fy[kuk Hkh lehphu gksxk fd tgka ekeyk foHkktu dk gksrk gS rks ogka bl vk’k; dh vk’kadk dks fuewZy ugh dgk tk ldrk gS fd mDr laifŸk;ka fookn esa gS vkSj ;gh vLFkkbZ fu”ks/kkKk ikfjr djus dk ,d vk/kkj Hkh gSA vr% ,slh fLFkfr esa bu laifŸk;ks ds foØ; o gLrkUrj.k rFkk mu ij fdlh izdkj dk dksbZZ lClVsfUVo pktZ fØ;sV dksbZ Hkh i{k ugh djs] bl ckcr vLFkkbZ fu”ks/kkKk tkjh djus dk izFke n`”V;k mfpr vk/kkj fn[kykbZ iM+rk gSA^^ 12. The principles for grant of interim injunction are well settled. The principles for grant of interim injunction are well settled. The parties must establish prima facie case, balance of convenience in their favour and irreparable loss, which may be caused to a party, if the injunction is refused. The primary facts, giving cause of action to file the suit, may be present in a case, but that, for the grant of interim injunction, there must be some averment in the pleadings or material, to show that the defendants are, in any manner, trying to transfer, or alienating the property. In the present case, the findings, which have not been challenged by the defendants, that on the pleadings and the material produced by the parties, there was no material before the Court, that any of the parties are trying to deal with properties, in any manner, which may cause any injury to the defendants, for which it is necessary to protect and preserve the properties, the grant of interim injunction restraining defendants from transferring or alienating the properties in any manner and creating any charge on the assets was not justified. 13. During the course of arguments, the Court requested learned counsels appearing for the plaintiff-respondents, to point out to any averment, or material, or even a suggestion, that the defendants, are transferring the properties, or creating charge over the properties, for causing any injury to the rights of the defendants, learned counsel appearing for the respondents were not able to point out to any pleading, material or evidence, which may even suggest to that effect. 14. We are informed that both the groups have filed their respective petitions under Section 397/398 of the Companies Act, 1956 for oppression and mis-management in the Company Law Board in respect of the Companies in which they (the applicants before CLB) are in minority, and that, the matters are still pending in CLB. In view of the cases pending in CLB, the relief for giving effect to the settlement dated 20.12.2007, in respect of Public Limited and Private Limited Companies, lies within the jurisdiction of the Company Law Board, which has the powers under Section 402 of the Companies Act, to pass appropriate orders and under section 403 to pass interim orders. So far as the properties of the proprietorship and partnership Firms, and the properties of the Hindu Undivided Family, the final relief may be considered in the decision of the civil suit. So far as the properties of the proprietorship and partnership Firms, and the properties of the Hindu Undivided Family, the final relief may be considered in the decision of the civil suit. I am thus of the considered opinion that in view of the findings recorded by the trial court, the relief of interim injunction, restraining the defendants from transferring, or alienating the properties, or creating any substantial charge on the properties, described in Schedule "Ka" to "Cha”, was not justified. 15. In Ramesh Vajabhai Rabari V/s Pratiksha Real Estate (P) Ltd. ( 2014(12) SCC 190 ), the principles for grant of interim injunction in respect of the properties for protecting and preserving them, were reiterated. In Makers Development Services (P) Ltd. V/s M.Visvesvaraya Industrial Research & Development Centre (2012) 1 SCC 735 , the Supreme Court observed that while passing an interim order of injunction under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC, the Court is required to consider three basic principles, namely, (a) prima facie case, (b) balance of convenience and inconvenience, and (c) irreparable loss and injury. In addition to the above-mentioned three basic principles, a Court, while granting injunction must also take into consideration the conduct of the parties. The Court should not interfere only because the property is a very valuable one. The grant or refusal of injunction has serious consequences depending upon the nature thereof and in dealing with such matters, the Court must make all endeavours to protect the interest of the parties. Similar views were also expressed in Best Sellers Retail (India) (P) Ltd. V/s Aditya Birla Nuvo Ltd. ( (2012) 6 SCC 792 ), in which it was held that where the injury that would be suffered by the plaintiff on refusal of temporary injunction, cannot be said to be irreparable, the Court would not be justified in granting temporary injunction. 16. In the modern business, the Companies cannot run the business, unless they are required to enter into financial transactions with banks and financial institutions, and for the purpose, creation of charges, without which loans are not permitted by the banks, are necessary. In ordinary business transactions, the charges are created on the assets, or stocks in favour of the banks and financial institutions. In ordinary business transactions, the charges are created on the assets, or stocks in favour of the banks and financial institutions. The injunction order against creation of charge will not only affect the business of the Public Limited and Private Limited Companies, it will virtually, stop them from doing the business, which will also be harmful to the proprietorship and partnership Firms and will ultimately harm the interest of the plaintiffs also if they finally succeed in the suit, and in that view of the matter, the order, by which the trial court restrained the defendants from creating charge, was not justified. 17. All the ten Civil Miscellaneous Appeals, arising out of the same order dated 10.02.2011, are thus partly allowed. The injunction, as granted by the trial court, restraining the defendants from transferring or alienating the properties, or creating charge, over the properties mentioned in Schedule "Ka" to "Cha” is set aside. The other part of the order, directing both the parties, to produce their six monthly and yearly accounts, duly audited, in respect of the business mentioned in Schedule "Ka" to "Cha”, is maintained. 18. S.B. Civil Misc. Application No.153/2014 is disposed of. 19. The parties will bear their own costs. 20. The interim application is also disposed of. 21. A copy of this judgment will be placed in all the connected files.