JUDGMENT

Parthivjyoti Saikia, J. - Heard the learned counsel, Mr. D. Kamduk appearing for the petitioner and also heard Mr. K. Tama, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.

2. This is an application under Article 227 of the Constitution of India praying for quashing and setting aside the judgment and order dated 26.04.2018 passed by the District Judge, Yupia in Misc. First Appeal No.02/2017. By the impugned judgment, the Court below set aside the order of injunction dated 02.11.2017 passed by the Civil Judge (Sr. Division) Yupia in I.A. No. 68/2017.

3. Mr. Kamduk, has submitted that the Court below had decided the entire case while setting aside an injunction order passed under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 of the CPC.

4. The factual matrix of the case may be stated thus ---- The present petitioner purchased a plot of land in the year 2011. He purchased the land which included a stone quarry from the son of the present respondent. It may be stated that no stone quarry was allowed to be operated from the said purchased land. Therefore, nothing about the stone quarry was mentioned in the sale deed. This particular land where the stone quarry stand is situated between the LPC land and the river Dikrong. In fact, the stone quarry was standing on the river bed.

5. The petitioner has claimed that since there is no mention of a stone quarry in the sale deed, the respondent started to encroach upon the quarry of the petitioner and therefore, the petitioner filed a complaint before the Executive Magistrate, Naharlagun. Some order was also passed to that effect.

6. Thereafter, the respondent filed a suit being Title suit No. 33/2017 in the Court of Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Yupia. In the aforesaid suit, the present petitioner entered appearance and filed a petition praying for ad-interim injunction restraining the respondent. The Civil Judge allowed the prayer in ad-interim injunction and passed an order to that effect on 02.11.2017. Thereafter, the respondent filed an appeal before the Court of Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Yupia and the impugned order was passed.

7. The law pertaining to ad interim injunction owes a lot to a famous English decision of the House of Lords rendered in American Cyanamid Co. Vs. Ethicon Ltd., (1975) 1 AllER 504. Lord Diplock in Cyanamid's case laid down the following guiding principles for the grant of interlocutory injunction:

(1) The plaintiff must first satisfy the Court that there is a serious issue to decide and that if the defendants were not restrained and the plaintiff won the action, damages at common law would be inadequate compensation for the plaintiff's loss.

(2) The Court, once satisfied of these matters will then consider whether the balance of convenience lies in favour of granting injunction or not, that is, whether justice would be best served by an order of injunction.

(3) The Court does not and cannot judge the merits of the parties' respective cases and that any decision of justice will be taken in a state of uncertainty about the parties' rights."

8. In Zenit Mataplast P.Ltd. vs State of Maharastra & Ors, (2009) 10 SCC 388, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under

"Interim order is passed on the basis of prima facie findings, which are tentative. Such order is passed as a temporary arrangement to preserve the status quo till the matter is decided finally, to ensure that the matter does not become either infructuous or a fait accompli before the final hearing. The object of the interlocutory injunction is, to protect the plaintiff against injury by violation of his right for which he could not be adequately compensated in damages recoverable in the action if the uncertainty were resolved in his favour at the trial"

9. In Zenit Mataplast,s case (supra), the Hon,ble Supreme Court further held that Grant of temporary injunction is governed by three basic principles, i.e. prima facie case; balance of convenience; and irreparable injury, which are required to be considered in a proper perspective in the