IMPORTANT POINT
The court emphasized the importance of considering the balance of convenience and irreparable loss in granting temporary injunctions, and referenced legal principles from various court decisions to support the decision to vacate the temporary injunction.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. C. Lalfakzuala, learned counsel for the appellants. Also heard Mr. B. Lalramenga, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. This is an appeal filed under Order XLIII, Rule 1 (r) CPC read with Section17 (2) (b) of the Mizoram Civil Court Act, 2005 challenging the impugned Order dated 18.01.2024 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division)–IV, Aizawl in CMA No.797/2023 arising out of Civil Suit No.136/2023.

3. The brief fact of the case in nutshell is that; the present respondent was entrusted with the duty of a supervisor to look after the Keifang Branch building of the Mizoram Co-operative Apex Bank Ltd., during the period of the former Board of Directors. After the formation of the New Board of Directors (2023-2028), the management/supervision of the construction of the Keifang Branch building of MCAB Ltd. was taken over by the New Board of Directors. The respondent averred that he had expended Rs.8,63,432/- (Rupees Eight lakhs Sixty-three thousand four hundred and thirty-two) only from his own pocket in construction of the said building. Accordingly, the present respondent/plaintiff filed a Civil Suit No.136/2023 against the appellants, herein as defendants Nos. 1 to 3 praying for;

3.1. A decree declaring that the impugned Resolution dated 14.07.2023 vis-à-vis Agenda No.9 of the defendant No.2 is illegal, void and the same is liable to be set aside and quashed.

3.2. Further, prayed for a decree declaring that the appointment of the defendant No.3 by the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 to execute and supervise the construction work of the Keifang Branch building of MCAB Ltd. is illegal and hence, the same is liable to be set aside.

3.3. A decree of declaring that the plaintiff/present respondent had been rightfully appointed by the defendant Nos. 1 and 2 to execute the construction work of the building of Keifang Branch, MCAB Ltd. Further, with a declaration to uphold the Deed of Agreement dated 27.06.2023 which was executed between the plaintiff and the defendant No.1 for construction of said building.

3.4. The present respondent/plaintiff further prayed for a decree directing the present appellants/defendants to pay an amount of Rs.8,63,432/- (Rupees Eight lakhs Sixty-three thousand four hundred and thirty-two) only along with a permanent and perpetual injunction restraining the defendants from interfering/intervening in the construction work in pursuance to the Deed of Agreement dated 27.06.2023.

4. Thereafter, the appellants filed their written statement with counter claim against the claim of the respondent in Civil Suit No. 136/2023. The reliefs claimed in the counter claim are as follows;

4.1. For a decree declaring that the Deed of Agreement dated 27.06.2023 is not enforceable as per the law and is also not binding upon the defendant Nos. 2 and 3 as well as the defendant No.1.

4.2. Further prayed for a decree declaring that the Board of Directors resolution dated 14.07.2023 is sustainable and good in law and the counter claimants/defendants have the right and authority to continue the construction work of the building.

4.3. Also, prayed for a decree directing to the present respondent/plaintiff to pay a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten lakhs) only to the counter claimants/defendants No. 2 and 3 for filing a frivolous suit.

5. Mr. C. Lalfakzuala, learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the matter in CMA No.797/2023 arising out of Civil Suit No.136/2023 pertains to an application for grant of temporary injunction under Order 39, Rule 1 & 2 of CPC read with Section 94 (e) of CPC filed by the respondent herein against the appellants to restrain them from construction of the building work of the Keifang Branch, MCAB Ltd. and further prayed for, stay/suspension of the impugned resolution dated 14.07.2023 vis-à-vis Agenda No.9 of the appellant No.2. Thereafter, the appellants accordingly filed their written objection in CMA No.797/2023.

6. After hearing the submissions made by the plaintiff/present respondent