Point of Law: Plaintiff has failed to show that object of granting injunction would have been defeated by delay inasmuch as even after knowing that power of attorney in question was sought to be revoked.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. A C Sarma, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. B Haldar, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. D Das, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. K Mahammad, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. The present appeal is filed under Order 43 Rule 1 (r) of the CPC, 1908 assailing an order dated 06.04.2023 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Bongaigaon in Misc Case No. 16/2023 arising out of TS No. 19/2023.

3. The background of the present case:

I. The appellant as plaintiff instituted a suit being TS No. 19/2023 before the learned court of Civil Judge, Bongaigaon for cancellation of a Registered deed of Revocation bearing registration No. 02/52 dated 11.01.2023, whereby of an irrevocable power of attorney executed earlier by the Defendant on 16.03.2005 was cancelled. Alternatively a prayer for damages and compensation was made.

II. Along with the aforesaid suit, the plaintiff also filed an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the CPC for grant of injunction.

III. The injunction prayed for was to the effect that the defendant be restrained from using and from utilizing the Deed of revocation under challenge in the suit. A prayer of ad-interim temporary injunction was also made with a further alternative prayer that an injunction be issued to maintain status quo before 11.01.2023 (the date of execution of the deed under Challange).

IV. The learned trial court by the impugned order dated 06.04.2023 refused to grant ad-interim injunction without issuing notice to the defendant, after considering the nature of the allegation and pleading of Plaintiff.

V. Such order has been assailed in the present appeal. The plaintiff has also filed an application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the CPC along with the appeal, which is registered as IA (Civil) 1137/2023. This court under its order dated 03.05.2023, while issuing notice passed an injunction order restraining the respondent from acting upon the deed of revocation dated 11.01.2023 and also restrained them from interfering, disturbing in running the business in question until further order.

VI. The respondent has appeared in this case and filed an IA being IA (civil) 1261/2023 for modification/vacation of the aforesaid order dated 03.05.2023. The respondent has also filed objection in the IA (Civil) 1137/2023 resisting such prayer of injunction.

VII. As the parties are duly represented and affidavit has been filed and as agreed to by the learned Counsels fo the parties, instead of taking the IAs separately the entire first appeal is taken up for final hearing.

4. The case projected by the plaintiff/petitioner:

I. The plaintiff/petitioner pleaded that the respondent/defendant was having a licence of retail outlet (petrol/diesel pump) from Indian Oil Corporation Limited and thus the defendant was an authorized dealer of a retail outlet at Rakhaldubi in the district of Bongaigaon under S.T. category.

II. As the defendant had some personal inability and financial constraint to start the petrol pump and to look after and manage the said business, he appointed the plaintiff as his attorney by executing an irrevocable power of attorney dated 16.03.2005.

III. It is also pleaded case of the plaintiff that such irrevocable power of attorney was executed pursuant to an unregistered deed of agreement dated 16.03.2005 entered between the parties.

IV. It is further pleaded that it was agreed between the parties in the aforesaid deed of agreement that the deed will have an effect from 01.04.2004 and that the plaintiff shall arrange necessary finance as well as manage assistance required to run the retail outlet dealership. The defendant shall also provide full financial as well as managerial support in running the dealership and therefore, the defendant/dealer shall execute an irrevocable power of attorney in favour of the plaintiff.

V. It is also contended that by the aforesaid agreement it was agreed between the plaintiff and defendant