IMPORTANT POINT
The power of the Appellate Court in injunction proceedings is limited and can only be interfered with if the order is irrational, illegal, unreasonable, or in violation of well-settled principles for the grant of injunction.

JUDGMENT :

This is an application filed under Section 227 of the Constitution challenging the order dated 19.09.2023 passed in Misc. Appeal No.09/2022 whereby the learned First Appellate Court set aside the injunction so granted by the learned Trial Court in its order dated 23.08.2022 passed in Misc.(J) Case No.73/2022 arising out of Title Suit No.64/2022.

2. I have heard Mrs. R. Choudhury, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Mr. A. Alam, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the private respondents as well as Mr. T. R. Gogoi, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State respondents.

3. The question which arises is that whether the learned First Appellate Court had exercised the jurisdiction not conferred upon it by law or had exercise its jurisdiction illegally and with material irregularity. For deciding the said aspect of the matter this Court briefly would like to take note of the facts leading to the filing of the instant proceedings.

4. The petitioners herein as plaintiffs had instituted a suit against the private respondents herein as well as the State respondents seeking a decree for confirmation of possession and for permanent injunction. A perusal of the plaint of the said suit which has been registered and numbered as Title Suit No.64/2022 reveals that the plaintiffs claimed their rights upon the suit land on the basis of an Annual Patta.

5. It is the specific case of the plaintiffs that the defendants who have no right over the suit land are trying to dispossess the plaintiffs from the suit land and in that process has taken help of the Circle Officer, Laharighat Revenue Circle and the said Circle Officer was threatening the plaintiffs of dire consequences and it is on the basis thereof, the suit was filed seeking the reliefs as aforestated. Along with the said suit, an injunction application was filed which was registered and numbered as Misc.(J) Case No.73/2022 seeking ad-interim temporary injunction restraining the opposite party No.6 to evict the plaintiffs from the suit land as well as also other opposite parties from entering into the suit land till the disposal of the suit. The learned Trial Court vide an order dated 23.05.2022 had passed an ex-parte injunction restraining the defendant No.6 in the suit from evicting the plaintiffs from the suit land and also restraining the opposite parties from entering into the suit land. Thereupon, written objections were filed by the opposite parties/defendants stating inter-alia that they were in possession of the suit land and therefore the question did not arise of the opposite parties dispossessing the plaintiffs, and resultantly, the question of granting an injunction not to dispossess the plaintiffs from the suit land did not arise.

6. Be that as it may, the learned Trial Court by the detailed order dated 23.08.2022 considering the well settled principle of law for grant of an injunction restrained the opposite parties from entering into the suit land and also restrained the opposite party No.6 from dispossessing the plaintiffs from the suit land till the disposal of the suit. Being aggrieved, an Appeal was preferred by the private respondents herein challenging the order dated 23.08.2022 passed in Misc.(J) Case No.73/2022. The said Appeal was allowed vide the order dated 19.9.2023 and it is under such circumstances, the instant proceedings has been filed.

7. This Court has heard the learned counsels for the parties and also given due consideration to their respective submissions. This Court has also perused the impugned order dated 19.09.2023. A perusal of the impugned order dated 19.09.2023 reveals that the learned First Appellate Court was in conformity with the order passed by the learned Trial Court in respect to the plaintiffs having a prima-facie case and also the balance of convenience is in favour of the plaintiffs. However, on the question of irreparable loss, harm and injury the learned First Appellate Court decid