Point of Law: Merely having prima-facie case would not entitle an applicant to an injunction. The applicant has to satisfy all the three ingredients.

ORDER :

1. Heard Mr. M.H. Rajbarbhuiyan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. R. Choudhury, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is filed assailing the order dated 30.08.2018 passed in Misc. Appeal No. 9/2018 by the Court of the Civil Judge, Karimganj thereby confirming the order dated 07.05.2018 passed by the Munsiff No. 2, Karimganj in Misc. (J) Case No. 333/2017 arising out of Title Suit No. 215/2017 whereby the Trial Court issued an injunction directing both the parties to the suit restraining them from indulging in any act of alienation or transfer of any portion of the land appertaining to new Dag No. 1728 of Patta No. 1209 under Mouza-Karimganj Town-Part-3 Block No. 2 Pargonah-Kushiarkul till the disposal of the suit.

3. The case of the petitioners is that the respondent nos. 1, 2 and 3 had instituted a Title Suit being Title Suit No. 215/2017 seeking inter-alia for declaration that the respondent no. 1 is the owner of the suit land for declaration that the judgment and decree dated 06.09.2010 passed in Title Suit No. 98/2002 was fraudulently passed; for perpetual injunction restraining the defendant nos. 4 and 5 (petitioners herein) from alienating, selling, transferring the suit land etc. For the purpose of adjudication of the instant application, it is necessary to take note of what constitutes the suit land. The said suit land has been described in the Schedule to the plaint and for convenience sake the same is quoted herein-below:

“SCHEDULE

District Karimganj, Porgona-Kushiarkul, Mouza-Karimganj town Part-3, Block No. 2, Khatian No. 1395, Old Dag No. 1741 (part of), Patta No. 1209, New Dag No. 1728 (part of). Bounded by:

East: Sabek land of Raiyob Ali Choudhury @ Raiyob Ali, father of plaintiff No. 1 at present the other heirs of Raiyob Ali alias Raiyob Ali Choudhury i.e. Mohbubur Rahman Choudhury and Others (plaintiff/D.H. of T.S. No. 291/2012, T. Ex. Case No. 10/2017 measuring an area of 3 Kedar i.e. 0.84 Acre).

West: Saral Kha Road

North: Land of Dag No. 1708 (new) belong to heirs of Mahmod Hussain and Others.

South: Land of Dag No. 211 (new) i.e. land of heirs of Kasim Ali.

Within this boundary homestead land measuring an area of 1 (one) Kedar i.e. 0.28 Acre and standing residential two Nos. of pucca houses having sanitary latrine, bathroom etc. with electric service and water supply service connection.”

4. A perusal of the above quoted Schedule of the plaint would go to show that the suit land measures 1 Kedar i.e. 0.28 acre whereupon there are two numbers of pucca houses having sanitary latrine, bathroom etc. with electric service and water supply service condition. Along with the said suit, the respondents herein filed an application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the CPC which was registered and numbered as Misc. Case No. 333/2017. By way of the said injunction application a temporary injunction was sought for restraining the defendant nos. 4 and 5 i.e. the petitioners herein from attempting to obtain Sale Permission/No Objection of the land of the suit schedule from the office of the defendant nos. 2 and 3 and from alienating/selling/transferring the land of the aforesaid settlement Dag in favour of any other person by presenting the Deed before the office of the defendant no. 6; to create disturbance in the peaceful use occupation and possession of the plaintiffs over the schedule suit land and further restraining the defendant nos. 2 and 3 from according Sale Permission/No Objection in favour of the defendant nos. 4 and 5 (petitioners herein) and further restraining the defendant no. 6 from registering the Sale Deed of the suit land if presented by the defendant nos. 4 and 5 (petitioners herein) in the name of any other person and all the defendants be restrained from causing loss and suffering to the plaintiffs (respondents herein) in any manner till the disposal of the suit.

5. The petitioners filed their written stateme