1. Heard Mr. I. Chowdhury, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. P.C. Dey, learned counsel for the sole respondent.

2. By filing this application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure and under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the impugned order dated 09.12.2015 passed by the learned Civil Judge No. 3, Guwahati in Misc.(J) Case No. 65/2014, arising in connection with T.S. No. 223/2012.

3. In order to appreciate the issues involved in this revision, it is necessary to state a summary of the case of the parties before the learned trial court:-

a. The petitioner No. 1 herein is the plaintiff in T.S. No. 223/2012. Sri Maneswar Sargiari (Boro) was the arrayed as the defendant No. 1 in the said suit, who is not a party in this revision. Smt. Sunita Devi Jalan and Smt. Prachir Jalan were arrayed as Proforma defendants No. 2 and 3 in the suit, but they are not the parties in this revision. Later in point of time, the sole respondent herein was impleaded in the suit as defendant No.2.

b. The suit was for declaration, recovery of possession and permanent injunction.

c. In the plaint, it was projected that the plaintiff had purchased four plots of land, described in Schedules- A, B, C and D of the plaint and it was alleged that in the year 2004, the said Arun Gogoi had kept the defendant No. 1 as a watchman in respect of the suit land described in Schedule-B, by constructing a house, where the defendant No. 1 was residing with his family.

d. It was further projected that in respect of the land described in Schedule B of the present plaint, the said Sri Arun Gogoi had filed a suit against the present Proforma defendants in the present suit, which was registered as T.S. No. 260/2007. The said suit was made over to the court of learned Civil Judge No. 3, Guwahati for trial. It has been stated in the plaint that the suit was withdrawn by the said Sri Arun Gogoi on amicable settlement by order dated 17.12.2011. But after the suit was withdrawn, the defendant No. 1 was asked by the said Sri Arun Gogoi to look after the suit property described in Schedule A, B, C and D of the plaint in the present suit. The defendant No. 1 by submitting his written statement contested the said suit. Be it stated that at the time of filing the suit, the said Arun Gogoi, who is the sole respondent herein was not a party in the suit when it was initially filed and he was subsequently impleaded as defendant no.2.

e. Along with the said suit, a separate application for injunction was filed by the respondent No.1 herein, which was registered as Misc. (J) Case No. 239/2012. The learned Civil Judge No. 3, Guwahati by order dated 19.10.2012 passed in the said Misc. (J) Case No. 239/2012, granted ad interim order of injunction, restraining the Opp. Party from alienating the suit land as shown in Schedule-A to D land or to change the nature and feature of the suit land by way of construction till the disposal of T.S. No. 223/12. The relevant and operative part of the said order is as follows:-

“From the documents available, I am of the considered opinion that as the plaintiff has been able to demonstrate better title and OP has not claimed any title for himself, the balance of convenience lies in favour of the petitioner.

I found in the submission of the petitioner side that on the strength of possession, if the OP transferred the land by way of sale, gift or mortgage, the petitioner shall suffer irreparable loss and injury. During hearing ld. Advocate of the OP has admitted that they have no claim of possession except over the B schedule land of the plaint.

Considering all above, I am of the opinion that the suit properties need to be protected during trial of main suit. As such, it is a fit case for grant of temporary injunction by restraining the OP from alienating the suit land as shown in Schedule A to D land or to change the nature and feature of the suit land by way of construction till dispo