The court emphasized the need to consider the maintainability of the suit and the balance of convenience before granting an injunction. It also highlighted the relevance of the time fixed for performance in the agreement to the Limitation Act, 1963.

JUDGMENT :

DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.

Heard Mr. A Das, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. G.N. Sahewalla, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. S Todi learned counsel for the respondents.

2. This is an appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 (r) of the CPC directed against the order dtd. 26/2/2020 passed in Misc (J) Case No.32/2019 by the Court of the learned Civil Judge Jorhat, whereby the said Court restrained the appellant herein from entering to the suit land or from disposing of the suit land to any other person except the petitioner until the disposal of the suit.

3. At the outset, the learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is not aggrieved by the portion of the order to that effect by which there was an injunction restraining the appellant from disposing of the suit land till the disposal of the suit. The appellant submits that the appellant being in possession of the suit land, the injunction order directing the appellant not to enter into the suit land has seriously affected the appellant and it is for that reason the instant appeal has been preferred.

4. In the backdrop of the above submissions, let this Court take into consideration the facts of the instant case. For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to in the same status as they stood before the trial Court.

5. Admittedly an agreement for sale was entered into on 21/12/2010 between the plaintiffs and the defendant for sale of a plot of land measuring 76 katha 4 lessas covered by Dag No.51 (Old)/485 (new) of PP No.1 of Gormur Mouza in Chinamora Gaon under Jorhat East Circle in the district of Jorhat, Assam. The total consideration for the said sale was Rs.74, 67, 600.00. It was agreed to that out of the said amount, an amount of Rs.25, 00, 000.00 would be paid at the time of signing of the said agreement and the balance amount of Rs.49, 67, 600.00 would be paid at the time of execution of the final sale deed. Accordingly, the said amount of Rs.25, 00, 000.00 was duly paid to the defendant which is duly admitted. Subsequent thereto, another agreement for sale was entered into which is registered whereby the total consideration for the said suit land was reduced from Rs.74, 67, 600.00 to Rs.36, 48, 000.00. It was further mentioned that another amount of Rs.12, 00, 000.00 was duly paid on the date of the said agreement and the remaining amount of Rs.4, 48, 000.00 would be paid within 6 (six) months next or at the time of final execution of the sale deed whichever is earlier. Further to that the defendant had duly admitted the receipt of Rs.32, 00, 000.00. The plaintiff had further averred that the plaintiff was ready to pay the balance amount of Rs.4, 48, 000.00 and they had offered it to the defendants but the defendant refused to accept the balance amount then and expressed his willingness to accept the same at the time of registration of the sale deed. It further appears from a perusal of the plaint that it was the duty of the defendant to take all necessary steps for obtaining the necessary sale permission from the competent authority in respect to the suit land in favour of the plaintiffs but the defendant failed to obtain the sale permission in spite of readiness of the plaintiffs. The plaintiff had requested several times to register the sale deed in their favour but all in vain. Relevant to mention herein that there has been no specific details or particulars mentioned as and when the plaintiffs had approached the defendant or requested the defendant to register the sale deed in their favour.

6. Subsequent thereto, on 9/7/2018 a legal notice was issued by the plaintiffs to the defendant demanding inter alia to come forward for registration of the sale deed and to obtain the NOC from the competent authority after receiving the balance consideration amount and intimate the plaintiffs the date on which the deed of sale would be registered within one month from the date of receipt of the notice, failing which legal remedies would be init