Fraud allegations against an earlier decree need specific particulars before interim restraint on its implementation can be granted.

Interim injunction to restrain implementation of an earlier decree was refused because the plaintiffs failed to plead or prove fraud with specific particulars or supporting material. The decree had already been passed on merits and affirmed in appeal, so its binding effect could not be displaced by bare allegations. The record also showed that the Club and its members were aware of the litigation and had taken steps in relation to it, which weakened the claim that the decree was obtained behind their back. As no prima facie case was established and the balance of convenience was not in the plaintiffs' favour, the application was dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the plaintiffs were entitled to interim injunction restraining implementation of the earlier decree on the basis of alleged fraud and absence of authority.

Analysis: The plaintiffs sought interim relief against a decree that had already been passed on merits and affirmed in appeal. The allegations of fraud were found to be general, unsupported by particulars or evidence, and insufficient to displace the binding effect of the earlier adjudications. The record also indicated that the Club and its members were aware of the litigation and had taken steps in relation to it, which undermined the plea that the decree had been obtained behind their back. In these circumstances, the Court found that the plaintiffs had failed to establish a prima facie case, and the balance of convenience was also not in their favour.

Conclusion: The request for interim injunction was rejected and the application was dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: A party seeking to impeach an earlier decree on the ground of fraud must plead and establish specific particulars and supporting material; bare and general allegations are insufficient to justify interim interference with a concluded adjudication.

---