Point of Law: When the chance of suffering irreparable loss and injury which could not be compensated or computed in terms of money was not in existence, the rejection of the Court concerned to the prayer for ad-interim was justified.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. A.R. Malhotra, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. J.H. Ramneihmawia, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 3. None appears for the respondent No. 4. It is submitted at the bar that the respondent No. 4 is otherwise only a proforma respondent.

2. By filing this application under Order 43 Rule 1 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (CPC) and Section 17 of the Mizoram Civil Courts Act, 2005, the appellant has impugned the Order dated 08.12.2021 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge – IV, Aizawl in Civil Misc. Application No. 262/2021 arising out of Civil Suit No. 37/2021, by which a temporary injunction was granted to the respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 3 (plaintiffs) and against the appellant (opposite party No. 1) by restraining her from disbursing/withdrawing any amount of money through any mode from her Savings Bank Account No. 97010483531 at Mizoram Rural Bank, Chaltlang Branch, Aizawl and also in respect of Savings Bank Account No. 97007908888 at Mizoram Rural Bank, Sairang Branch, belonging to the proforma respondent No. 4/defendant No. 2. It is submitted at the bar that the temporary injunction in respect of the respondent No. 4/defendant No. 2 had later been modified by the court below and he is now allowed to operate his bank account.

3. Brief facts of the case essential for disposal of the instant appeal and as projected by the respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 3 is that they along with 3 (three) other persons, entered into an agreement with the appellant/defendant No. 1 for sharing equally the amount of compensation to be received towards certain plot of land belonging to the respondent No. 4/defendant No. 2 and one Smt. Lalthlamuani and the same was executed on 09.06.2016, and witnessed by the President, Village Council of Sihhmui, Sairang, Aizawl District. However, when the compensation amount was received for the property in question, the appellant/defendant No. 1 failed to abide by the agreement dated 09.06.2016 and instead, she distributed the compensation amount as per her own wishes and in violation of the agreement. Aggrieved, the respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 3 filed Civil Suit No. 37/2021 before the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Aizawl, praying for a decree for declaring the agreement dated 09.06.2015 (2016) as valid and binding upon the parties and for a direction to the appellant/defendant No. 1 and the respondent No. 2/defendant No. 2 for immediate payment of money to them as per the said agreement.

4. Along with the Civil Suit, the respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 3 filed Civil Misc. Application No. 262/2021 under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC for grant of permanent and temporary injunction against the defendants (the appellant and the respondent No. 4), to restrain them from disbursing/withdrawing the amount of money from their respective savings bank account in Mizoram Rural Bank, Chaltlang Branch and Sairang Branch respectively. Although the appellant as defendant No. 1 filed her written objection, the learned Court below vide the impugned order dated 08.12.2021 granted temporary injunction to the respondent Nos. 1, 2 & 3 in the manner as already indicated herein above. Aggrieved, the defendant No. 1 as appellant is before this Court.

5. Mr. A.R. Malhotra, learned counsel for the appellant submits that an injunction, either temporary or permanent under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC can be granted subject to the court being satisfied that there is a prima facie case made out by the applicant and that there is balance of convenience in favor of the applicant. Further, the court has to be also satisfied that irreparable injury would be caused to the applicant which cannot be compensated by way of damages if an injunction is not granted. He submits that in the instant case, the prima facie satisfaction of the Court below on the said pre-requisites is not discernible. A bare perusal of the impugned order only shows that in the opinion of the Court, irreparable loss would be caused to the applicants u