Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI, ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH
HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MITALI THAKURIA, J.
Musstt Ayesha Begum, D/o. Late Mokbul Ali Mazumder – Petitioner
Versus
Musstt Moina Begum, W/o. Amir Uddin Mazumder, D/o. Makbul Ali Mazumder And Anr. – Respondents
CRP No.42 Of 2022
Decided On : 31-07-2024
INJUNCTION - CIVIL PROCEDURE - CPC Sections 115, Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 - The court discussed the application of Section 115 of the CPC regarding the revision of orders and the principles governing interim injunctions under Order XXXIX. It emphasized the necessity of establishing a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss. The court found that the lower courts failed to adequately consider these principles, particularly the lack of evidence showing irreparable harm to the plaintiffs, leading to the dismissal of the injunction order.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration of their right, title, and interest over a specific land and sought an injunction against the defendant from constructing on that land. The defendant claimed ownership through a registered sale deed and was in exclusive possession of the land. The trial court granted an injunction against the defendant, which was upheld by the appellate court, prompting the defendant to seek revision in the higher court.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the lower courts erred in granting the injunction without sufficient evidence of irreparable loss to the plaintiffs. The court noted that the plaintiffs did not establish a prima facie case or demonstrate how they would suffer irreparable harm if the construction proceeded.
Issues: Whether the lower courts correctly applied the principles for granting an interim injunction, particularly regarding the establishment of a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the lower courts failed to properly assess the evidence and the legal standards for granting an injunction. The absence of a specific prayer for recovery of possession and the lack of demonstrated irreparable harm to the plaintiffs were critical in determining the appropriateness of the injunction.
Final Decision: The civil revision petition was dismissed, and the orders of the lower courts were upheld, as the court found no merit in the petitioner's claims.
JUDGMENT :
(Mitali Thakuria, J.)
Heard Mr. G. N. Sahewalla, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. H. K. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. None represented the respondents’ side, though from the record it reveals that in spite of taking steps on several mode, the respondents/plaintiffs did not appear before the Court to contest the case.
3. This is an application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for interference of this Court in the Order dated 15.06.2021, passed by the learned Munsiff No. 2, Cachar, Silchar, in Misc. (J) Case No. 123/2018, arising out of Title Suit No. 107/2018, as well as the Order dated 11.03.2022, passed by the learned Civil Judge No. 2, Cachar at Silchar in Misc. Appeal No. 07/2021 thereby dismissing the appeal.
4. The brief facts of the case is that the respondents herein as plaintiffs filed a suit, being Title Suit No. 102/2018, before the Court of learned Munsiff No. 2, Cachar at Silchar for declaration of their right, title and interest and ejmali possession over 2 Kathas, 10 Chotaks and 1 Gonda of land as described in the Schedule-II of the plaint and also for confirmation of possession over the Schedule-II land. In the said suit, it is also prayed by the plaintiffs for restraining the principal defendant No. 1, petitioner herein, from making any construction over the Schedule-II land although the plaintiffs had mentioned that they are the non evictable tenant in respect of Schedule-II land. The plaintiffs also made a mention in the plaint that the principal defendant No. 1/petitioner had obtained permission for construction of building over the Schedule-II land from the Silchar Development Authority on 12.04.2018, which was later on suspended by this Court in WP(C) No. 3579/2018, vide order dated 15.06.2018, thereby directing the defendant No. 1 not to carry out any construction on the strength of the said building construction permission. It is also stated that if the petitioner/principal defendant No. 1 succeeds in making construction over the Schedule-II land in that circumstances the plaintiff would suffer irreparable loss and injury, but there was no specific averment to show as to how the plaintiffs would suffer from irreparable loss and injury as it is the admitted position that the petitioner is in possession of Schedule-II land exclusively and independently and there is no prayer in the Title Suit for recovery of possession and thus, the plaintiffs could not show as to how the construction work carried out by the petitioner/ defendant No. 1 would result in irreparable loss and injury.
5. The plaintiffs also filed an application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 & 2 read with Section 151 CPC, which was numbered as Misc. (J) Case No. 123/2018, praying for grant of interim injunction restraining the petitioner from making any construction work and from changing the nature and feature of the suit land. The petitioner, as defendant No. 1, entered into appearance upon receipt of summon and filed her Written Statement as well as objection to the injunction prayer. It was the specific case of the petitioner, along with the other contesting defendants, that the petitioner was in exclusive possession over the Schedule-II land and she purchased the maliki right of the land from one Shri Sujash Mazumder, who is the son of the original owner Late Binoy Mazumder, on payment of valuable consideration vide registered Sale Deed No. 756/1995. Further it was pleaded that the said Binoy Mazumder, being the original owner, had leased out 12 Kathas, 2 Chataks of land to one Mokbul Ali Mazumder and the petitioner is the daughter from the first wife of said Mokbul Ali Mazumder. The said Mokbul Ali Mazumder had also purchased the maliki right from Sujash Mazumder in the year 2005 and subsequently Jakir Hussain Mazumder had sold land measuring 1 Katha to the petitioner/defendant No. 1 vide registered Sale Deed No. 5709/2014 and accordingly the possession was handed over to the petitioner wi
A temporary injunction cannot be granted without discussing essential principles, and a property owner cannot be restrained from using their property without a strong prima facie case.
Court could not have come into finding that there was a balance of convenience in not granting an injunction.
The court established that for a temporary injunction, a prima facie case, irreparable loss, and balance of convenience must all be satisfied.
A temporary injunction requires a prima facie case, irreparable loss, and balance of convenience; mere establishment of a prima facie case is insufficient.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the grant of interim injunction should adhere to the settled principles under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC, and the court should not interfer....
The supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court can overturn lower court decisions if those decisions reflect procedural errors or ignore critical facts pertaining to ownership and possession.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
