Kalyan Rai Surana, J.

Heard Mr. D. Mozumdar, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. P. Bora and Mr. J. Kakoti, learned counsel for the applicants in IA(C) No. 1930/16. Also heard Mr. A.K. Purkayastha, learned counsel assisted by Mr. N.N. Upadhyay, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. For the sake of convenience, the parties are hereinafter referred to as "appellants" and "respondents", as they are arrayed in the connected RFA No. 67/2016.

2. I.A.(C) No. 1930/16 is filed by the respondents Nos. 3 and 4 for vacating/modifying the order dated 05.10.2016 passed by this Court in RFA No. 67/2016. By the aforesaid order dated 5.10.2016, as an interim measure and till the next returnable date, the parties have been directed to maintain status-quo as on the date of the said order. It would be pertinent to mention herein that I.A.(C) No. 1652/2016 has been filed by the appellant under the provisions of Order 39, Rule 1 and Rule 2 of Code of Civil Procedure read with Section 151 of the code. Both the applications are proposed to be disposed of by this common order.

3. The appellants, namely, Nupur Kumar Gogoi and Dibakar Dutta were the plaintiffs in Title Suit No. 17/2015, which was filed before the learned court of Civil Judge, Lakhimpur, North Lakhimpur. The following prayers were made by the appellants:

"(a) Pass a decree cancelling the deed of lease agreement No.704.2014 and pass necessary order(s) for consequential reliefs.

(b) pass a decree for permanent injunction restraining the defendant No.1, 2, 3 and 4 from entering illegally into the land and building described in the schedule - A hereto below;

(c) pass for the cost of the suit;

(d) and pass any order as may be deemed fit & proper in the circumstances of the suit."

The description of the suit premises described in Schedule - A of the plaint, which is very relevant for the purpose of these cases is quoted below:

"Schedule-A

A R.C.C. building with 3 rooms covering 38' x 18' sq. ft. plinth and covering 30' x 50' sq. ft. space (about 9 lucha of land) carrying a fair price shop and its godown by Sri Dibakar Dutta, the plaintiff No. 2. Bounded by-

North - Land owned by Sri Bogen Gogoi

South - Land of Smti. Jyotika Gogoi

East - Lilabari Airport road

West - Land of Smti. Jyotika Gogoi."

4. Mr. Mozumdar, learned counsel for the Respondents Nos. 3 and 4 submits that in the appeal and injunction application filed before this Court, the appellants have suppressed vital and relevant material facts and submits that had those facts not been suppressed, this Court might not have passed the interim order dated 05.10.2016 in RFA No. 67/2016 and therefore, not only the respondent Nos. 3 & 4 have suffered irreparable prejudice, but in the process, the appellants have become disentitled to any relief in these cases.

5. In support of his contention, Mr. Mozumdar submits that the respondents Nos. 3 and 4 had taken the land measuring 2 Katha- 15 Lechas, covered by Dag No. 484 of Periodic Patta No. 137 of North Lakhimpur Sahar, Part-II, under Nakari Mouza in the District of Lakhimpur on lease. He submits that after procuring the requisite "land sale permission" from the Office of the Deputy Commissioner, under Memo No. LRS. 2/1/Part-II/2014/8 dated 17.11.2014, the said Deed of Lease was duly registered before the concerned Sub-Registry and numbered as Deed No. 596/2011 dated 18.11.2014. He further submits that it is mentioned in the said lease deed that the land has been taken with an intention to start the business of retail outlet under the dealership of Essar Oil Company Limited.

6. Mr. Mozumdar, by referring to the said deed of lease dated 18.11.2014 [(Annexure-C to I.A.(C) No. 1930/16] submits that the appellant No. 2, who is the son of respondent No.3 and an Advocate by profession in the North Lakhimpur Bar, has signed therein as "Witness No. 2" and the photograph as well as his thumb impression also appear in the page appended at the end of the said deed of lease. He also refers t