The Appellate Court should not interfere with the trial court's exercise of discretion in granting or refusing interlocutory injunctions unless the discretion has been exercised arbitrarily, capriciously, or perversely, or where the court had ignored the settled principles of law regulating such injunctions.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Shri B. D. Deka, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Shri G. Choudhury, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and since the contesting parties are represented, this Court is of the view that instead of keeping this petition pending, the same is required to be disposed of which is being done today.

3. The petitioners are the plaintiffs in the suit which has been filed for declaration of right, title, interest and partition.

4. It is the case of the petitioners, as submitted by Shri Deka, learned counsel that along with the suit numbered as Title Suit No. 28/2021, Misc (J) Case No. 28/2021 was filed under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 of CPC for injunction and on 01.03.2021, the learned Munsiff, Amingaon, Kamrup had passed of an order of ad-interim injunction. The matter was thereafter taken up for consideration and after hearing the parties on 22.03.2022, the learned Trial Court had passed an order confirming the injunction and has directed the defendants not to change the nature of the schedule property till the disposal of the suit or until further orders. The said order of injunction dated 22.03.2022 was the subject matter of challenge in an appeal preferred by the defendants before the Court of the learned Civil Judge, Kamrup which was registered as Misc. Appeal No. 3/2022. The learned First Appellate Court vide the judgment dated 02.05.2023 had allowed the appeal and had set aside the order of injunction dated 22.03.2022.

5. Shri Deka, the learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the role of an Appellate Court while adjudicating an order pertaining to grant or non-grant of injunction is circumscribed. The settled law is that the Appellate Court is required to maintain self-imposed restriction as injunction orders are matters of discretion and until such discretion is exercised in a manner which is wholly opposed to the settled principles of law or the principles of nature justice, such interference is not to be made in a routine manner.

6. Coming to the subject matter of dispute, the learned counsel has submitted that the petitioners as plaintiffs have a good case on merits and if the injunction is vacated, the whole purpose for filing the suit would be frustrated and therefore he prays for an interference with the order dated 02.05.2023.

7. Per contra, Shri G. Choudhury, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that there was no ground at all to pass an injunction order as there was no primafaciecase able to be made out by the petitioners as plaintiffs. He submits that there is a registered sale deed in favour of the defendant no. 1 which is not even the subject matter of challenge. He submits that the defendant no.1 is constructing a 3 storey house on the said plot of land after taking loan and if the order of injunction is maintained, she will suffer irreparably as there would be grave difficulty to repay to the bank.

8. By drawing the attention of this Court to the affidavit-in-opposition filed on 13.06.2023, Shri Choudhury has submitted that alongwith the said affidavit, the photograph of the structure which is under construction has been annexed and the same would reflect that the constructions are at a half done stage and with difficulty, the defendant no. 1 is residing on the 2nd floor even without the same being completed. He accordingly submits that the Appellate Court having applied its mind before passing the order dated 02.05.2023, there should not be any interference with the said order.

9. There is no dispute that the role of an Appellate Court with regard to an order of grant or non-grant of injunction is a restricted one wherein the Appellate Court should go slow unless a case of gross illegality or perversity is made out. In this connection one may refer to the landmark case of Wander Ltd. v. Antox India (P) Ltd., reported in 1990 Supp SCC 727, and the subsequent cases including the case of Ramdev Food Products (P) Lt