IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of adhering to the cardinal principles of granting temporary injunctions, including considering the prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury, and ensuring that the relief granted aligns with the relief sought by the applicants.

JUDGMENT :

MARLI VANKUNG, J.

1. Heard Mr. C. Lalfakzuala, learned counsel for the appellants along with Mr. P.C. Lalthangmawia, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. The instant appeal is filed under Order XLIII, Rule 1(r) CPC read with Section 17 (2)(b) of the Mizoram Civil Courts Act, 2005 against the impugned Order dated 30.11.2023 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division)-II, Aizawl in CMA No. 437 of 2023 and CMA No. 458/2023, arising out of Heirship Certificate Case No. 1604/2022, wherein a temporary injunction was granted to the present respondents and the present appellants were directed to restrain from taking any unlawful action such as using physical force or by words, sign or gestures or cause physical or mental harassment or to make it unpleasant or intolerable for the present respondents No. 2 & 3 and also from interfering with the tenants of the plaintiff No. 1/present respondent No. 1 from collecting monthly rent in the CMA No. 437/2023. In CMA No. 458 A/o CMA No. 437/2023, the present appellants were also directed to remove the door locks fitted by them in the main door of the suit property and to restore goods and personal belongings of the tenant.

3. A brief fact of the case is that the deceased F. Pazawna had constructed 3 (three) storied RCC building within the area covered under LSC No. 104901/01/583 of 2012 located at Chawnga Road, Khatla, Aizawl. The present appellant No. 4 and his family along with the present respondent Nos. 2 & 3 are residing on the top floor or the RCC building which is also the main family building (INPUI), which is given house No. E-60. The present appellant No. 1 and his family are residing in the middle floor and given house No. E-60(1). The ground floor is occupied by present appellant No. 2 and their house is numbered as house No. E-60(2). The deceased F. Pazawna had also constructed 4 (four) storied RCC building numbered “House No. E-60/B’ within the area covered of the said LSC.

4. The issue between the appellants and the respondents is in respect of the first floor of E-60/B building concerning the tenants and the persons who should collect the rents.

5. An Heirship certificate application was filed by the present respondents No. 1 to 3, which was registered as Heirship Certificate Case No. 1604/2022, for issuance of Heirship Certificate in respect of the building left by their deceased father F. Pazawna and also with regards to the collection of rents from the tenants in the building. The present respondent had then filed an application for grant of temporarily injunction under Order 39, Rule 1 & 2 CPC read with Section 151 CPC against the appellants to restrain them from doing any action and to restrain them from collecting monthly rent from the tenants till further order or final disposal of the application which was registered as CMA No. 437 of 2023. The learned trial court then passed the impugned order dated 3.11.2023, in CMA No. 437 of 2023.

6. Aggrieved, the appellants have now filed the instant appeal against the order dated 30.11.2023 in CMA No. 437/2023 arising out of Heirship Certificate Case No. 1604/2022 and have also prayed for setting aside the subsequent orders dated 30.11.2023 in CMA No. 458/2023 arising out of the impugned CMA No. 437/2023.

7. Mr. C. Lalfakzuala, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the present respondents were the plaintiffs in Heirship Certificate Case No. 1604/2022. The prayer in the plaint of the present respondents did not contain any relief sought by them by way of granting an order of permanent injunction and as such, in the absence of such a prayer, the learned Trial Court had erred in granting the impugned temporary injunction which was not prayed for in the plaint. In support of his submission he has cited Gadadhar Barman vs. Ranendra Mohan Paul, (1998) 1 GLR 383.

8. The learned counsel for the appellants also submits that the learned trial court had failed to determine the applicant under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC. A