Heard Mr. S. Kalita, the learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. B. Das, the learned counsel for the respondent.

2. This appeal was listed in the ‘orders’ column, for consideration of the prayer for an ad-interim injunction in the connected I.A.(C) No.1668/2016. Considering the nature of prayer made in the said I.A., this Court is of the view that upon hearing the learned Counsels for the parties in respect of the said I.A., even the present appeal can be disposed of together at this stage. Hence, with the consent of the learned counsels for both sides, the entire matter was heard.

3. This appeal under Order XLIII Rule 1(r) read with Section 151 CPC is directed against the order dated 21.09.2016, passed by the learned Civil Judge No.1, Kamrup (M), Guwahati in Misc. (J) Case No. 232/2016, arising out of Title Suit No. 175/2016. By the impugned order, the learned trial court had refused the prayer for passing an order of ad-interim injunction till disposal of the suit.

4. The appellant herein is the plaintiff in TS No. 175/2016, which is pending for disposal before the Court of Civil Judge No.1, Kamrup (M), Guwahati (hereinafter referred to as the “Trial Court”). The appellant is a firm doing business as a builder. The appellant along with another builder, namely, M/s. Manjula Business Consortium on one part and the respondent, namely, Md. Intag Ali @ Munna and his brothers, namely, Md. Amzad Ali @ Nilu and Md. Yusuf Ali @ Babu and sisters, namely, Mustt. Taharun Nessa @ Janu Begum and Mustt. Minuwara Begum @ Soni on the other part had entered into a “Deed of Agreement for Construction of Apartment Building dated 20.03.2013”, registered on 17.06.2013 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Construction Agreement). The proposed construction was to come up on the land described in Schedule-A and Schedule-B mentioned in the said agreement, which were offered by the respondent as well as his two brothers and two sisters named herein before (hereinafter jointly referred to as land-owners). In lieu of the said land, the land owners were entitled to allotment of space measuring about 5,000 sq. ft. in form of five separate flats having super-built area measuring about 1,000 sq. ft. each complete with bathroom fittings and fixtures together with 5 car parking space. The case projected in the plaint is that while the two brothers and two sisters of the respondent were satisfied on receiving their respective flats, the respondent had verbally requested the appellant for a bigger flat and, as such, he was shown Flat No.C-2 at the 2nd floor of the newly constructed building, which was measuring about 1,280 sq. ft. The respondent agreed to take possession of the said flat and it was verbally agreed that the appellant would be paid sale consideration for the additional space of 280 sq. ft. at the rate of Rs.2,800/- per sq. ft., amounting to total consideration of Rs.7,84,000/-. It is claimed that although the said flat No. C-2 was allotted to the respondent, the same was still in the possession of the appellant and that the appellant apprehended that the respondent may enter into the said flat without paying the agreed consideration of Rs.7,48,000/-, which would cause irreparable loss and injury to the appellant and taking over the physical possession of the said flat would be in violation of the Construction Agreement as well as their verbal agreement. It was also projected that on the basis of the verbal request by the respondent for such additional space of 280 sq. ft., the respondent had issued 3 cheques of Rs.50,000/- each to the appellant with commitment to further pay the remaining amount in cash. However, as the said cheques were drawn on “self” but were not issued in the name of the appellant, those three cheques were returned and the respondent was required to hand over the agreed payment in the name of the appellant. Without making any payment, the respondent had served a notice dated 16.02.2016, demanding completion of the